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

27–014 PDF 2018

S. Hrg. 115–159 

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE DHS FRONTLINE: 

EVALUATING STAFFING RESOURCES AND 

REQUIREMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 22, 2017 

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 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

BROOKE N. ERICSON, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy 

JOSE ́ J. BAUTISTA, Senior Professional Staff Member 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

CAITLIN A. WARNER, Minority Counsel 

J. JACKSON EATON IV, Minority Senior Counsel 

HANNAH M. BERNER, Minority Investigator 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 2 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 17 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 20 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 22 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 25 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 29 

Senator Hoeven ................................................................................................. 32 

Senator Daines ................................................................................................. 35 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 41 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 42 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017 

Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council (testifying on behalf 

of Border Patrol Agents, U.S. Customs and Border Protection) ...................... 5 

Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury Employees 

Union (testifying on behalf of Office of Field Operations Officers, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection) ......................................................................... 7 

Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council (testifying on behalf of Enforcement Removal Operations Officers, 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) ................................................... 9 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Crane Chris: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Judd, Brandon: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Reardon, Anthony M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

APPENDIX 

Photo referenced by Mr. Reardon ........................................................................... 63 

Chart submitted by Senator McCaskill ................................................................. 70 

DHS Memorandum submitted by Senator McCaskill .......................................... 71 

American Association of Port Authorities Statement for the Record .................. 77 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Statement for the Record .......................... 79 

National Immigration Forum Statement for the Record ...................................... 86 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record 

Mr. Judd ............................................................................................................ 93 

Mr. Reardon ...................................................................................................... 100 

Mr. Crane .......................................................................................................... 106 

(1) 

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE DHS FRONTLINE: 

EVALUATING STAFFING RESOURCES AND 

REQUIREMENTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines, 

McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to testify and 

for taking the time to write your testimonies, which I think were 

very interesting and provided a lot of good information that we are 

going to need as we try and develop policy to secure our border and 

properly enforce our immigration laws. 

Now, 3 weeks ago, we held a hearing, ‘‘The Effects of Border Insecurity and Lax Immigration Enforcement on American Communities.’’ We had witnesses telling some pretty grim stories. Julie 

Nordman’s husband, Randy, was the fifth—the last person killed in 

a five-person murder spree. Jill Marie Sundberg was brutally murdered up in Washington State. We all know the well-publicized 

case of Kate Steinle. Unfortunately, in the intervening period, another horrific case has come to mind. 

Now, I will be the first to acknowledge crimes are 

committed—horrific crimes—by U.S. citizens. There is no doubt 

about that. But, it is small comfort to the family of Kate Steinle, 

to Julie Nordman and her family, and to the family of the other 

victim in Washington that, well, American citizens commit crimes, 

too. Their family members were murdered by people in this country 

illegally, because we have not, in many cases, enforced our immigration laws. 

The most recent horrific example—and I am going to read just 

segments. I can only read segments of this news story about a 14- 

year-old girl at Rockville High School in Rockville, Maryland. Jose 

Montano, a 17-year-old from El Salvador, and Henry SanchezMilian, an 18-year-old from Guatemala—here is the account: ‘‘The 
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

2The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

victim, the 14-year-old girl, was walking in a school hallway when 

she met two male students identified as Montano and Sanchez. 

They forced her into a boys’ bathroom and then into a stall. Court 

records describe the merciless and brutal assault by both Montano 

and Sanchez, who allegedly raped the young girl multiple times.’’ 

According to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases, an agent from the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) stopped 

Sanchez-Milian in August of 2016 in Rio Grande Valley (RGV), 

Texas, and determined he had entered the country illegally from 

Mexico. That was in August of 2016. He was ordered to appear before an immigration judge, but the hearing had not yet been scheduled. That is just a fact. There is another victim—and a victim because we failed to enforce immigration laws. 

The purpose of this hearing, now, is to hear from those of you 

who are on the front lines. This is about laying out the reality that 

you are facing, in terms of having proper staff—proper allocation 

of staff. And, today, we have three witnesses. And, I will introduce 

each of you prior to your testimony, but we obviously have somebody from Border Patrol. We have a witness with 20 years of experience, by the way—boots on the ground. We also have a witness 

from the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO). So, Border Patrol is between the 

ports. Office of Field Operations is the ports of entry (POEs). And, 

by the way, that is 25 years of experience with that individual. 

And, we have another witness from U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE)—14 years of experience enforcing our laws in 

the interior. These are gentlemen that have been in these positions 

over multiple Administrations and that can tell us exactly what 

has happened over time, where we are today, and what we need 

to do to effectively enforce our immigration laws and try and keep 

our homeland safe. 

So, again, I want to thank the witnesses. I appreciate your testimonies. I am looking forward to it. And, with that, I will turn it 

over to our Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. I would ask for my formal opening statement to be made part of the record,1 Senator Johnson, if 

I could. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

And, can I ask to have mine2—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Absolutely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let me just riff for a moment. 

First of all, thank you all for the work you do. As a former prosecutor for a lot of my career, I was honored to work shoulder to 

shoulder with law enforcement—and I understand the duty you 

have, the risks you take, and the sacrifices that both you and your 

families make. And, it is important to note that you are here, representing many more just like you, in your roles as officers in your 
3 

unions. I am proud to see union leaders at this table—especially 

public-sector union leaders. 

There has been a war on public-sector unions in my State, and 

I do not get it. I think you all see the value of being able to represent the front line in an organized way, where their voices can 

be heard. And, I appreciate that very much. 

All of us want to secure the border. The question is not whether 

or not we want to secure the border or whether or not we all agree 

that crimes committed by anyone, including people who are not in 

this country legally—we have to do everything we can to prevent 

them. The question is: How do we do that? The question is: What 

is the right strategy to really get at this problem? 

And, what I would like to hear today is, whether or not what is 

being proposed is, in fact, the right strategy and whether we have 

put enough time into the analysis of the right strategy, going forward. 

For example, I was down on the border. I was in McAllen, Texas, 

and I spent time with dozens and dozens of Border Patrol agents 

(BPAs). And, every single one of them—I asked them—frontline 

folks, not—I mean, the management were all hovering. That is another question. I think you guys are way too management heavy. 

I just do not think there is any question that you have way too 

many managers and not enough frontline folks. And, I kept asking 

them, ‘‘What do you need?’’ And, time after time, I heard the same 

things. 

I heard, ‘‘Lateral roads—access—so that, when our technology 

identifies, we can get there.’’ 

I heard about technology. I was blown away by the fact that the 

Border Patrol had figured out how to jury-rig a night vision set of 

goggles on a pickup truck with an arm that extended it up. Now, 

they did not buy this off of the shelf. They kind of designed 

it—you guys kind of designed it, yourselves, in order to get eyes up 

above, when the floating eyes cannot fly, for whatever reason, or 

for the fact that the topography down there really needs eyes 

up above. The idea that you all are having to jury-rig this together—rather than getting the latest technology that is available. 

And then, I heard that you do not even have enough bandwidth 

at the processing center in McAllen to use the kiosks that we 

bought. 

So, I hear all of these things, and then I try to figure out why 

a wall across the entire border. I did not have one border agent tell 

me that we needed a wall across the entire border. I think I was 

told 55 more miles in that sector would be helpful—or 75 more 

miles would be helpful, but not across the entire border. 

I also want to know: Why 10,000? Why 5,000? Who did this analysis? Why do we not restructure or get rid of some of the managers? We cannot even hire the ones that are authorized now. We 

are not even at full capacity for the ones that are authorized. 

So, it does not seem like, to me, that either the wall or the number of people that are being requested in the budget has undergone 

the kind of scrutiny that it would go through in the private sector—the kind of analysis to really determine what is the most efficient and effective way to deploy our resources to help you all and 
4 

to give you the support you need. And, that is what I want to try 

to dig into today. 

I am disappointed no one from the Department of Homeland Security is here, today, because we are being asked, right at this moment—I know the Chairman says that it is early and that it is too 

early to get them here—and he has not joined me in inviting the 

officials from the Department of Homeland Security to these hearings. But, they are asking for billions of dollars right now in the 

supplemental, and I think these questions need to be posed to 

them—not just questions posed to you all, who are in the important 

job of representing your membership, in terms of the voice of your 

union members, to management, within your specific operations. 

And, finally, I will close with this: The notion that the numberone killer in our country—more than car crashes and more than 

homicides—is, in fact, opioids—the notion that we are going to hire 

15,000 more agents, for both ICE and Border Patrol, and we are 

going to leave the ports uncovered—all that is going to do is 

squeeze all of those drugs to the ports—and you guys know it. But, 

they are not requesting any officers to go to the ports. And, they 

are cutting the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to build the wall. 

Now, if this is about getting the opioids—the deadly poison that 

is killing our country—in addition to securing the border—and securing the border does not just mean illegal people coming across. 

It also means drugs. It does not appear to me that this is a wellthought-out plan. It appears to me that this is political and not 

solid policy. And, I look forward to the chance to question you 

about that and get your responses to that. I know what you guys 

want. You want the resources you need. I want to help you get 

those. I just want to make sure we are not engaging in campaign 

promises instead of policy that will actually secure the border and 

take the money away from the cartels that are making as much 

money on the peso as they are making on drugs right now, in 

terms of the per head tax that people pay to get the illegals—the 

smugglers pay to get through those various cartel territories—I 

want to get after that. 

And, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is also, I assume, going to be cut, because the U.S. Department of Justice 

(DOJ) is being cut. So, it just does not make sense to me—that the 

policies have been well thought out, and I look forward to questioning you about that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. And, of 

course, that is the purpose of this hearing—to scrutinize these proposals, so that Congress is well informed and so that we can actually work with the Administration to actually secure the border 

and enforce immigration laws. So, I am completely flexible, in 

terms of my approach. I want to see what works. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I would love it—if it is about the policies, it would be great to question the people who are setting the 

policies. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, I was just—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, the next hearing, on the wall—once 

again, I have asked DHS to come as the Minority witness, and you 

have not joined me in the invitation to have the Department of 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Judd appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

Homeland Security here to talk about the wall. And, I do not understand how we can get at questioning the policies if we do not 

have people at the table that are responsible for the policies. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Having solved a lot of problems, you first 

lay out the reality, which is what we are doing here in these hearings. I think this is our 20th or 21st hearing on border security— 

laying out the reality—and, of course, as I think you are aware, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security will then be here the day after our 

hearing on the wall and the fencing. So, you will have your chance. 

And, we are going to give the Secretary a chance to also get prepared to testify before the Committee. 

So, again, we are laying this out in a very organized fashion. We 

are going to lay out the truth. We are going to lay out the reality 

and, hopefully, then design policies that will actually work once 

and for all, in terms of securing our border and enforcing our immigration laws. 

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

you will all rise and raise your right hand, I would appreciate it. 

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. JUDD. I do. 

Mr. REARDON. I do. 

Mr. CRANE. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Brandon Judd. Mr. Judd serves as the president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). Mr. Judd 

joined the Border Patrol in 1997 and served in multiple positions 

at the Northern and Southwest borders. Mr. Judd. 

TESTIMONY OF BRANDON JUDD,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL (TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF BORDER PATROL AGENTS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION) 

Mr. JUDD. Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member McCaskill, 

I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I am 

going to go off script. You have my written testimony, but, based 

upon the comments that you gave today, I would like to speak to 

that. 

Senator, had we have done our job, that 14-year-old girl would 

have never been raped. Period. That is all there is to it. Had we 

have held those individuals in custody—or that one individual in 

custody, pending a determination on whether that person should be 

allowed to remain in this country, that rape would not have happened. 

We failed the citizens of this great Nation by not securing the 

border. Not only did we have the ‘‘catch-and-release’’ program that 

completely and totally demoralized the rank-and-file agents in the 

Border Patrol, but we also had an arrest rate where, for one out 

of every five individuals that crossed the border illegally, we only 

arrested one out of every two. We only had a 50-percent effectiveness rate. That is a problem. So, not only were the individuals that 
6 

we were actually arresting—not only were we releasing those individuals, but we were only apprehending one out of every two that 

were crossing the border illegally. 

There is no private company in the United States that can operate and be successful if they have a 50-percent success rate. They 

would go out of business. Senator, you were in the private sector. 

Your business would have—I have to assume that your business 

would have gone under if you only had a 50-percent effectiveness 

rate. 

As far as the wall goes, Senator McCaskill, I agree with you 100 

percent. We do not need a great wall of the United States. We do 

not need 2,000 miles of border wall. I will tell you, however, that 

a wall, in strategic locations, is absolutely necessary. The fencing 

that we currently have can be defeated. Anybody can come up to 

that fence with a welding torch and cut a hole in it. In fact, they 

have. I, personally, was assigned to find holes in the fence. My 

brother was assigned for 3 years to patch holes—as a Border Patrol 

agent—to patch holes in the fence—and that was a daily activity 

that he was doing. So, yes, we absolutely have to have a barrier 

that cannot be defeated. And, if we do a wall—and we do it properly—on the border, we can, in fact, effectuate a better arrest rate. 

We can, in fact, secure the border. I am 100 percent positive that 

that can happen. 

Before we do that, we have to address the current issues that we 

have. According to CBP’s own figures, in order to bring Border Patrol up to the Congressionally-mandated floor—add 5,000 new 

agents and account for historical 6-percent rate of attrition—the 

Border Patrol will need to hire over 2,700 agents every year for the 

next 5 years. The 6-percent attrition—we lose over 1,000 agents 

per year because they do not like to work for the Border Patrol. We 

have seen a huge increase in morale since November 8th, and that 

increase in morale has been based upon the promise that we will 

be allowed to enforce the laws the way the laws were written on 

the books. And, that morale is going to be contingent upon whether 

or not we do, in fact, enforce the laws properly. But, it is also contingent upon whether or not we fix the problems that we have had 

in the past. 

The first and foremost problem that we have had is, we do not 

have pay parity with other law enforcement Agencies. Even though 

I am a General Schedule (GS)–12 and an ICE agent is a GS–12, 

the ICE agent gets paid more, because they have Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime. We do not. And, that overtime was cut 

due to management—the illegal use of the Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) by management in 2014. And so, we have 

to address pay parity. And, if you are looking at seriously securing 

the border and if we are looking at a comprehensive border security 

bill, we have to look at how we can bring back parity in pay with 

our sister Agencies. Otherwise, you are going to see a mass exodus. 

When ICE starts hiring, you are going to see a mass exodus of Border Patrol agents over to ICE—and that is the last thing that I 

want to see. 

We also have to fix the morale problem. If we look at it and we 

say that morale is strictly contingent upon enforcing the laws, we 

are going to miss all of the indicators of the past 20 years. We have 
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Reardon appears in the Appendix on page 51. 

enforced the laws before. We enforced the laws under the George 

W. Bush era and the Bill Clinton era. Yet, we still had a 6-percent 

attrition rate. So, we have to look at the underlying reasons for 

that—and we have to address that. 

I really look forward to answering your questions. I want to 

bring out what the frontline agents have seen every day to address 

the opioid issue. Senator McCaskill, I was a K–9 handler. I have 

seen, firsthand, exactly how the drug problem works. But, we are 

talking about Border Patrol agents in the field. And, you brought 

up that we are talking only about areas between the ports of entry. 

We are currently deploying Border Patrol agents to the ports of 

entry. It makes no sense. It absolutely makes no sense. We should 

not be using Border Patrol resources at the ports of entry. We need 

to address that issue and look at that and say, ‘‘OK, if we are going 

to get 5,000 agents to the Border Patrol, we also have to address 

the port of entry issue as well, because, otherwise, we are only addressing one small part of the problem.’’ 

But, Senator McCaskill, as a K–9 handler, I can tell you that the 

drugs that are coming across our border—we do not even have a 

minute handle on what is happening across our borders, as far as 

the drugs go. And so, we have to address those issues as well. 

I appreciate the time, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Judd. And, I saw Mr. 

Reardon shaking his head when you said that we need to have 

more staff at the ports of entry, which I think we all agree on. 

Our next witness is Mr. Anthony ‘‘Tony’’ Reardon. He is the 

president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), 

where he represents the Office of Field Operations. Those are 

agents at the ports of entry. During his time with the organization, 

Mr. Reardon has worked on initiatives to increase staffing levels at 

air, sea, and land ports of entry. Mr. Reardon. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY M. REARDON,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS OFFICERS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION) 

Mr. REARDON. Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member 

McCaskill, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

over 25,000 frontline CBP employees at 328 U.S. air, sea, and land 

ports of entry and at preclearance operations overseas. 

There is no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and travel efficiency and to stopping illicit trafficking in people, drugs, illegal 

weapons, and money than the lack of sufficient staffing at ports. 

The current CBP officer shortage is indeed staggering. There is a 

vacancy rate of nearly 1,400 funded CBP officers at the ports. And, 

according to CBP’s own workload staffing model, an additional 

2,100 CBP officers must be funded and hired in order to meet 2017 

staffing needs. A total CBP officer staffing shortage of 3,500 exists 

today. 

The economic cost of this shortage is staggering as well. For 

every 33 additional CBP officers hired, the United States can po-
8 

1The photo referenced by Mr. Reardon appears in the Appendix on page 63. 

tentially gain over 1,000 private sector jobs. Understaffed ports 

lead to long delays in travel and cargo lanes and result in a significant hardship for frontline employees. Both involuntary overtime 

and involuntary work assignments far from home destroy morale 

and disrupt the lives of CBP officers. 

One factor hindering CBP hiring is the high failure rate of the 

polygraph. NTEU is working with CBP and Congress on improving 

the process. This poster1—and I believe you all have a picture as 

well—shows a typical day at the San Ysidro, California port of 

entry. As you can see, there are 26 primary vehicle lanes, with up 

to 2 booths at each lane—a total of 50 booths. Approximately 

60,000 vehicles and 25,000 pedestrians apply for entry each day. 

In the photo insert, you can see the pedestrian crossers. Today, 

this port has over 350 CBP officer vacancies. By the summer of 

2019, this port will expand to 32 lanes, with 62 booths. But, the 

proposed fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget recommends no funding to 

hire any additional CBP officers for this or any other of the Nation’s 328 short-staffed ports of entry. Imagine working up to 16 

hours a day here, for days on end, with no relief in sight. 

An example of the negative impact staffing shortages have on 

CBP officers can be found at San Ysidro and Nogales, Arizona, 

where CBP has instituted involuntary temporary duty assignments 

(TDYs). Forced TDYs, caused by ongoing staffing shortages, undermine employee morale and overall recruitment efforts, because the 

very best recruiters should be CBP officers. 

Just last week, I heard from a female officer at a Texas airport 

who has been involuntarily assigned to a 90-day TDY assignment 

in Arizona. Her husband works for ICE and, at times, has to go on 

TDYs, himself. They have small children, and if he is called for a 

TDY while she is in Arizona, they are going to be in a significant 

bind. CBP has refused to give this CBP officer an excusal from this 

involuntary TDY. And, based on experiences such as this, many officers would not encourage their family members or friends to seek 

employment with CBP. Neither the President’s January Executive 

Order (EO), nor the President’s FY 2018 budget request, include 

any new funding to meet CBP’s staffing needs at the ports of entry. 

This is despite the fact that CBP officers at the ports of entry, in 

2016, encountered over 274,000 undocumented immigrants as well 

as seized over 600,000 pounds of illegal drugs and over $62 million 

in illicit currency—while processing over 390 million travelers and 

$2.2 trillion in imports through the ports. 

Both CBP and Congress need to step up. It is critical that CBP 

fix its broken hiring process, which has delayed the hiring of the 

2,000 officers funded in 2014. And, if Congress is truly serious 

about job creation, it should fund the hiring of the remaining 2,107 

CBP officers and the 631 agriculture specialists—identified in 

CBP’s 2016 workload staffing model—in order to address the ongoing CBP staffing shortages. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Reardon. I think we would 

ask ICE not to steal from Border Patrol, but I understand exactly 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Crane appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

what is—I understand that. Again, I think that is a really good 

issue to point out here. 

Our final witness is Christopher ‘‘Chris’’ Crane. Mr. Crane currently serves as the president of the National Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement Council. He joined U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement in 2013, and has served as an immigration 

enforcement agent and a deportation officer. Mr. Crane. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE,1 PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL (TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF ENFORCEMENT REMOVAL OPERATIONS OFFICERS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT) 

Mr. CRANE. Good morning, Senator Johnson and Ranking Member McCaskill. President Trump and DHS Secretary John Kelly 

have been unapologetic in their commitment to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. We believe that the recent statistics released by 

CBP, showing a sharp decline in illegal entries, is a direct result 

of their leadership—and that illegal entries will continue to decline 

if strong interior enforcement continues. 

While many have tried to make the strategy for stopping illegal 

immigration a complicated matter, it is not. Border security must 

continue. But, in addition to that, the United States must enforce 

its laws on the interior of the country and, as a Nation, send a very 

clear message to the rest of the world that illegal entry into the 

United States—and overstay—will not be condoned or permitted. 

The United States must stop dangling a carrot, drawing people into 

this country and encouraging them to violate U.S. laws. Interior 

enforcement is key to border security. 

During my career at ICE, I have never had the opportunity to 

commend a sitting U.S. President or DHS Secretary. Today, I am 

here to do just that. Amidst all of the hammering from the media 

and the protests from special interest groups, President Trump and 

DHS Secretary John Kelly have not waivered, but, instead, continued steadfast in their support of the rule of law and our officers 

in the field. If they continue that course, we believe countless lives 

will be saved, and the victimization now seen so often—as the result of illegal immigration—will dramatically decline. 

We need more officers and staff in ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). Currently, ERO has around 5,000 officers 

to police approximately 11 million illegal aliens, as well as millions 

of other lawfully admitted foreign nationals, nationwide. We are set 

up for failure from the word ‘‘go.’’ 

We enthusiastically support the additional officers identified in 

President Trump’s Executive Order on interior enforcement. However, we have little faith in the ability of ICE leadership to most 

effectively implement the additional staff. As staffing increases are 

considered and planned, ICE leadership should be thinking outside 

of the box and innovating, looking at new ways to have our officers 

do less paperwork and data entry and more law enforcement. However, from what we have seen thus far, that is not happening. No 

changes, no innovation, and no improvements. Business as usual. 
10 

While there is no question that morale within ICE is at the highest that it has been for many years, the President’s emphasis on 

enforcing the Nation’s laws will not completely solve the overall 

morale crisis within the Agency. As with DHS in general, ICE is 

suffering from a toxic and failed management culture—an absolute 

absence of leadership. In 2014, ICE was dead last in morale among 

314 Federal Agencies surveyed. In 2015, ICE was second from 

last—and, last year, sixth from last. 

‘‘Screw up and move up’’ is the general term used by many ICE 

employees to describe their supervision. Most employees have no 

trust in DHS and ICE internal affairs offices to effectively carry 

out investigations against ICE supervisors. At ICE, it is a ‘‘good ol’ 

boy network’’, in which supervisors cover for supervisors, and only 

rank-and-file employees are held accountable. Supervisors are permitted to harass, discriminate, and retaliate at will. Established in 

2003, ICE has practically no policies. The Agency generally depends on Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) policies 

from 20 years ago or more—or they just have no policy at all. Law 

enforcement officers within ICE generally do not believe they have 

the full support of ICE leadership in carrying out the Agency mission. 

During the last 8 years, ICE employees and officers have been 

publicly demoralized by their own government. These actions continue as ICE officers and their arrest activities are incorrectly portrayed and described publicly, in the media, by political pundits as 

‘‘gestapo’’ tactics and other Nazi references. It is pretty hard every 

day to maintain morale when your own government and the media 

turn on you for enforcing the laws enacted by Congress. 

Perhaps more importantly, this rhetoric places the safety and 

lives of our officers at risk. When our Nation’s lawmakers and government show no respect for the rule of law and the officers who 

enforce it, criminals feel empowered to become resistant and aggressive—and likewise lose respect for law enforcement officers. 

At the Congressional level, our officers and employees desperately need your support. We need your support in terms of additional officers, staff, and equipment, but we also need you to support the rule of law and the officers who enforce it. Everything you 

say and do has consequences. Talk of amnesty will create another 

run on the border. Disparaging comments about our officers will 

put their safety at risk. 

We can significantly stop the flow of illegal immigration into the 

United States—and with it much of the needless death and victimization that accompanies it—if we have the support of our government in supporting its laws. 

Thank you, and that concludes my testimony. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Crane. 

First of all, I think I speak on behalf of everybody at the dais 

here. We do recognize that, just like policemen and firefighters, the 

men and women that work in your Agencies are putting their lives 

at risk and putting themselves on the line, trying to enforce our 

laws—so we certainly want to thank you for that. 

And, that brings up my first question. Mr. Judd, a recent report 

by Border Patrol said that attacks from October 2016 through February 2017 are up, involving weapons, projectiles, and close-quarter 
11 

fighting—in other words, violent attacks against Border Patrol 

agents are up 179 percent. Can you just give me your feeling on 

why that is? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes. When we empower individuals to believe that 

they can, in fact, break our laws and there are no consequences to 

that, what we do is, we escalate the violence that exists on the border. I believe that figure that you just mentioned came out yesterday from the Rio Grande Valley. Assaults on Border Patrol agents 

are up by 150 percent, over this same time last year. And, again, 

what we have done, unfortunately, is, our own Federal Government 

has empowered criminals to feel that they are untouchable, that 

they can come to our country and do what they want to do, and 

that they can act with impunity to what the laws actually are. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Crane, we have heard, repeatedly—and 

I am, quite honestly, shocked, coming from the private sector—the 

retaliation from management across the government—and certain 

Agencies are worse than others. There is obviously a real problem 

with management within these Agencies. What is your solution? I 

mean, if you have to clean house, how thoroughly do you have to 

clean house? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, sir, thank you for the question. First of all, I 

would like to add to what Mr. Judd said—that I do not know that 

ICE collects the data, but we have been saying this for years. And, 

we have testified on this. Under the Obama administration, we 

have absolutely seen the aggression and the assaults against our 

officers climbing as well. It is out of control. So, I just wanted to 

make sure that we had that in there. 

I think what law enforcement, in general, in the country is now 

experiencing is what we have been feeling for a long time. When 

your government does not support you, the people sense that, and 

they cease to respect your authority. 

In terms of what do we do about our management problem, I do 

not think it is rocket science. And, I am not stealing something 

here from President Trump, because we have been saying it for 

years to every Director and every DHS Secretary that comes in. We 

need somebody to come in and say, ‘‘There is a new sheriff in town 

and it stops now.’’ 

Chairman JOHNSON. What stops? 

Mr. CRANE. The retaliation—just the activities of management, 

in general. I actually talked to Secretary Kelly about this last 

week. We need some of that U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) leadership 

tradition brought over to our Agency—leadership by example. 

Leaders are held to higher standards—accountability—and really 

do it. I mean, right now, it is like a ‘‘good ol’ boy network,’’ Everybody knows it is going on. A lot of people have stopped reporting 

it. But, even when it is reported, nothing is done about it. And, it 

has to start at the top. And, I know this may sound like a simplistic answer, but, give me the keys to the house, and I will show 

you what it takes to fix the Agency. And, that is what it is. We 

have to have a boss that comes in and starts—we need policies. We 

have no policies to even follow. That is half of the problem. But, 

the other problem is—again, it is this ‘‘good ol’ boy network.’’ And, 

it has to go away. 
12 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, again, a ‘‘good ol’ boy network’’ is populated by ‘‘good ol’ boys.’’ And, how many ‘‘good ol’ boys’’ are we 

going to, literally, have to send packing? And, I think the other 

part of that question, too, is—because I think we all recognize 

this—we see the statistics—the number of agents on the ground— 

the ratio of that to management has grown significantly over—I do 

not know what time period. Talk about both of those. 

Mr. CRANE. We are tripping over managers out in the field. And, 

we have been saying this for a long time. And, when we speak to 

ICE about it, one of the few things that they seem to talk to us 

about, and actually track—they are in complete agreement that 

they have way more managers. But, it does not seem to stop them 

taking—they will take two officer positions and make another management position out of it. And, they just keep doing it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, what caused that? Kind of go to the root 

cause. And, this is true across all three agencies, correct? We are 

management top heavy? So, when did this process begin? What 

caused it? Because, I think if we identify that, it is going to be easier to solve it. 

Mr. CRANE. Sir, I do not know if I can speak to what caused it, 

because I do not think it is necessary. I think it is management 

that is a little out of control, that does not have enough oversight, 

and that is just kind of running amok. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Reardon, can you comment on that? 

Mr. REARDON. Well, in terms of when it started, what I can tell 

you—to kind of help add some information about that—is that, 

around 2000—at least in OFO, my understanding is—if I have 

these numbers correct—that there was one supervisor to 12 frontline employees. And now, that number has changed to one supervisor for every approximately six employees. 

Now, what the actual catalyst was to changing that dynamic, I 

do not really know. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Would one of the solutions simply be to go 

back to the 12:1 ratio and have managers get back into the operating position? Is that even possible? Have they lost their skills? 

Are they too old? Is that a possibility? 

Mr. JUDD. To speak to that—the catalyst was what we call ‘‘kingdom building.’’ If you look at it—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Government bureaucracy. 

Mr. JUDD. It is. It is absolutely government bureaucracy—but 

the only way a manager can increase their GS level from, say, a 

GS–14 to a GS–15 is if their operations become more expansive. 

And so, in order to make your operations more expansive, you add 

additional people to your ‘‘team.’’ 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, the pay structure within the government 

certainly drives that ‘‘kingdom building.’’ 

Mr. JUDD. It is—and that is absolutely what drives it. If you look 

at my current sector, the Havre, Montana sector, we have a Chief 

Patrol Agent (CPA) who is a GS–15. He only oversees 137 agents. 

That is it. Why we have to have a GS–15 as a Chief Patrol Agent 

in the Havre sector—so what he did was, he expanded upon his 

‘‘kingdom,’’ and he put intel agents in cities, like Billings, Montana, 

that are 4 hours away from the border. Those agents actually oper-
13 

ate like FBI agents. They give us nothing, as far as the Border Patrol goes, but that is how he was able to get his GS–15. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, we really do need a top-to-bottom staffing review of every last one of these Agencies, providing a recommendation to the Secretary. 

Mr. JUDD. We have to. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Maybe we should do that through an outside Agency. There are plenty of human resources (HR) companies 

that could provide that type of a look, and we could take a look at 

that pretty quickly and get numbers on it. I mean, if you can take 

from your management rank and put that into boots on the ground 

rank, that will certainly help a little bit of the personnel shortage. 

Mr. JUDD. Well, Senator—and I do not want to take up too much 

time—but, due to days off, we—again, the United States Border 

Patrol has about 19,700 agents right now. Every day, about 60 percent of those 19,700 are on duty. We operate 7 days a week. And, 

we operate three shifts. So, 60 percent are on duty. Of that 60 percent, it is estimated that only 25 percent are actually deployed to 

the field in an enforcement capacity. The other 35 percent are 

doing administrative jobs. That is ridiculous. That has to change. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We will lay this all out. Again, I am an accountant. We are going to lay this out, so it is very apparent, in 

terms of what needs to happen. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I could not agree more, but, I will tell you, 

Mr. Crane, Mr. Judd, and Mr. Reardon, I am not probably as excited about hiring a contractor to figure this out. You guys know 

how to do it. You all should present plans to us on how to rework 

the management structure, so that we get people to the front line. 

It is not going to do us any good to hire 5,000 or 10,000 more if 

50 percent of them are going to be doing administrative work and 

figuring out to get a higher GS ranking for pay. That makes no 

sense, whatsoever. And, the fact that we are not doing that first— 

I mean, think of the efficiencies we could get out of your Agencies 

if we listened to the frontline workers, through your representation. That is what I think is really an important takeaway from 

this hearing—that unions matter. And, what you guys represent, 

in terms of people on the ground, matters. 

So, I would just tell you, I welcome your analysis on how we 

could rework management and how we could bring down the number of people doing administrative—versus the number of people 

that are on the front lines. 

And, also, Mr. Crane, I want you to know our whistleblower protection is, I hope, well known in the Federal Government. I hope 

you will encourage your members to let us know when there is improper behavior by managers against your frontline officers that 

are out there doing the hard work every day. When you see waste 

and abuse, I hope you call us, so we can follow up. And, we are 

very protective of whistleblowers. Nobody needs to worry that we 

are going to throw them under the bus. We will not. So, please, let 

everyone know that we want to be helpful. 

Mr. Crane, let me ask you about another part of the magnet— 

and this has been something I have been banging on since I got 

here. We know that there are employers in this country that are 

knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. We know—in fact, I bet if I 
14 

got a bunch of ICE agents in a room, in any given State, they even 

know who they are. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You guys know who they are. 

Mr. CRANE. We know who a lot of them are. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Why are we not prosecuting them? Why are 

we not going after the employers who are knowingly cheating? 

They are creating an unfair competitive advantage. They are, in 

fact, a magnet that is, in fact, helping draw people over the border. 

I mean, most of these people are not coming for a vacation. They 

are coming to try to find work. And, the issue is, if we never go 

after the employers—have you all, in terms of your union, ever presented a plan to management about how we could effectively enforce all of our laws—not just for those people who have entered 

this country illegally, but for the people who are hiring them illegally? 

Mr. CRANE. Ma’am, I could not agree with you more strongly, I 

believe. But, I would want to be clear that, I think that, maybe, 

in the previous Administration, obviously, there was nothing really 

done on worksite enforcement. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Or the previous. When I got here, Secretary 

Michael Chertoff sat in your chair and said, ‘‘I have no idea how 

many employers.’’ They could not even give me the numbers of employers—they had lots of photo opportunities of rounding up illegal 

immigrants in the workplace—but not one citation. And, somebody 

that ran ICE, at that point, actually had the nerve to tell me, 

‘‘Well, these would be hard cases to make.’’ I said, ‘‘No, they are 

not. If we have 10 workers working on the same Social Security 

number, give it to a jury and I will get a conviction in 10 minutes.’’ 

People hate that people cheat on this. 

Mr. CRANE. Well, but we cannot separate the two. I mean, if we 

are going to do worksite enforcement, then we have to do it with 

those people working there illegally. They have to be held accountable for what they have done. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Of course. 

Mr. CRANE. We absolutely need to very aggressively go after 

these businesses and their owners. I could not agree with you 

more. Worksite enforcement—even though ERO participates in it— 

it is actually the mission of Homeland Security Investigations 

(HSI) to prosecute it. But, my understanding of some of the problem, on the prosecution side, is the wiggle room within the law, in 

terms of prosecuting the employers. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I do not think so. It is knowingly. All you 

have to prove is they knew it. And, I mean, if we can make circumstantial arson cases in this country and we can make the kind 

of cases we make on a routine basis in criminal courts across this 

country—and I know we have several prosecutors on the panel 

here. I was in that courtroom for years and years. Believe me, this 

is not a hard case to prove—that somebody knowingly hired illegal 

immigrants. You guys know who they are. It is common sense, and 

you can get the evidence. All you have to do is subpoena their work 

records and figure out pretty quickly that they are—just find that 

they have no payroll records and they are paying everybody under 

the table. There are apartment buildings in St. Louis, Missouri 
15 

that are full of illegal immigrants, stacked to the gills, where people are getting paid by cash every 2 weeks, absolutely—talking 

about taking American jobs away. 

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely, ma’am. But, also, in some of those areas, 

we are prohibited from going in there. We have—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I need to know who is prohibiting you 

from going in there. And, we need to get to the bottom of that. 

Mr. CRANE. OK. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because, I think, this is a place where, 

maybe, we can get some bipartisan agreement. 

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely. Ma’am, I am telling you, you are so right 

on this. And, if we are able to do this worksite thing—and we actually do it, we are going to shut down so much of this illegal immigration and everything that goes with it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Absolutely. Talk about a deterrent. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is very hard to deter a woman and her 

children who think the only way they are going to live is to get to 

the United States of America. On the other hand, if you start taking businesses to court and actually punishing them for doing this, 

it is going to clean this up faster than all of the border agents in 

the world. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You covered the management questions, Mr. 

Judd. Let me circle back to the wall, just briefly. I am going to read 

a quote that I have of yours. 

Mr. JUDD. OK. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This caught my eye, because I agree with 

you, and I want to emphasize it. This was from November 17th on 

National Public Radio (NPR). ‘‘In fact, I was in discussion with the 

transition team yesterday. If you were to ask me, I would say that, 

right now, again, we have about 10 to 15 percent of our border has 

fencing or a wall. If I were to quantify an actual number, I would 

say that we need about 30 percent.’’ 

Do you still stand by that statement? 

Mr. JUDD. I do. And, that is actually one thing that I appreciate 

about the Trump administration. They did, in fact, bring the boots 

on the ground in, to talk about and discuss this. He took it from 

a business point of view, understanding that he had an idea, but 

understanding that he did not know everything. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, do you believe they are only going to 

want to build 30 percent? 

Mr. JUDD. I do not know. I do not know what the Administration—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because, we have not gotten that signal at 

all. The signal we have gotten is, this is going to be billions of dollars and they are going to—— 

Mr. JUDD. What I have gotten is that they are willing to take the 

expertise of those that know best. In fact, the Chief Patrol Agent 

that the Trump administration just installed, Chief Ronald Vitiello, 

just said that we do not need a wall across the entire United 

States. We need walls in strategic locations. All he did was parrot 

exactly what I have been saying for about a year. 
16 

Senator MCCASKILL. Perfect. Well, let us hope that you all will 

dictate that policy and that we can do something that makes sense, 

in terms of the wall, where we need it. I would point out that one 

54-mile section of fencing in South Texas required 400 land acquisitions—and 330 of those were condemnation by eminent domain— 

a lot of which is still litigating, because, as you know, your agents 

are sitting in pickup trucks by those open gates, because they are 

still in court after years and years and years. And, none of those 

costs have been figured in. All they have figured in on these costs 

is just the actual building. They have not figured in—one piece of 

land was initially offered at $114,000 for 8 acres. In August 2012, 

it was settled for $1 million. So, that is just one case, on one parcel 

of land. So, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in 

land acquisition that is not even—and maybe even billions—that is 

not even being figured into this, when you count the litigation that 

is involved. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, the good news is, we can influence these 

policies. That is the whole purpose of this hearing. So, we are getting a lot of good information. 

Before I turn it over to Senator Lankford, I do want to follow up 

really quickly on the threat. And, maybe, you do not want to answer this—and I will agree with Senator McCaskill. We have a 

very good process of whistleblower protection here, in this Committee. But, who is prohibiting you from enforcing the law with employers? 

Mr. CRANE. It is really kind of—it is a complicated kind of story, 

but, very quickly—under DHS, they combined Customs and Immigration to make ICE. There was kind of a turf war that took place 

after that. And, the bottom line is that the Customs folks kind of 

won. Their management won. And, they really, for the most part, 

do not want to do immigration work. That is part of the problem. 

The other part of the problem, actually—when I was talking to 

Senator McCaskill about being prohibited to do things—for example, in my area, in Park City, Utah, we would be prohibited from 

going into certain—we get complaints from citizens—residents— 

about these giant apartment complexes full of all of these people 

and stacked with all of these people in these apartment buildings. 

And, the Park City Mayor basically said, ‘‘I do not want you guys 

up here in Park City enforcing the law.’’ And then, that would 

come down, kind of politically, through the channels. And then, the 

Field Office Director would tell us, ‘‘Stay out of Park City.’’ And, 

the Police Chief up there would be singing the same tune. The cops 

on the ground are not saying it. They would be begging for us to 

be up there. But, that is kind of how the politics play out. 

And, I want to tell you right now, we have, in the past, had individuals in custody and had—at least what we were told was, ‘‘Senator such-and-such called or Representative so-and-so called, and 

you guys got to cut this guy today.’’ 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, it is kind of—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. We need to know about that. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Like an under-the-table sanctuary city. 
17 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is a felony. And, if that is going on, we 

need to know about it. I mean, when you all hear that in the field, 

you have to call us, because that is—and, follow those people to 

work and arrest the guy who is hiring them. Follow them to work. 

I mean, I just think that is unbelievable. 

Mr. CRANE. Well, I do want to say, on the tail end of both of 

those comments, that Enforcement and Removal Operations—that 

is who I work for—we are all about doing this immigration mission. 

And, anything that you can do to bring those—because we have 

half of the missions, basically. HSI has some of them. HSI does not 

want to do them, and they continually keep kind of moving them 

over to us. Somebody needs to look at, one, I think, making them 

do their immigration missions, but, long term, we need to look at 

bringing more of those immigration missions over to ERO—the 

folks that will actually do them—and expand our duties to where 

they actually include worksite enforcement and things like that— 

because we will get it done for you. We will get it done for the 

country. I am telling you. ERO—we do more with less than anybody, I think, in the Federal Government. Give us those immigration missions. Give us the people to do it, expand our duties, and 

we will make it happen for you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You will all be supplied our websites for 

whistleblower protection, so you can contact our Committee. 

Mr. CRANE. Sir, if I could just say on that really quickly, the 

whistleblower part of it, though, is just a small piece of it. It is 

really kind of out in the field. It is anytime an officer or an employee says, ‘‘Hey, boss, I do not think this is safe. I do not think 

this is legal. I do not think this is right.’’ And, it does not always 

fit into that—in fact, it seldom does fit into that whistleblower 

thing. And, we have an Office of Special Counsel (OSC) case right 

now, where, it is our understanding, the Office of Special Counsel 

has found that, ‘‘Hey, this is one of the clearest whistleblower cases 

that we have seen,’’ and absolutely nothing is being done. That 

manager is still out there managing, if you will, harassing every 

single day these employees—and nothing happens with it. So, our 

folks—and I think all Federal employees—have completely given 

up on this whistleblower protection thing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, well beyond this hearing, we will work 

very closely with you and our staffs—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. We should do a whole—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Bipartisan. We have held whistleblower— 

we will do more. But, we will work very closely with our staffs and 

with your Agencies. And, we are going to get to the bottom of this. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Gentleman, thank you for being here. Thank 

you for the work on this. This is something Senator Heitkamp and 

I are working on as well, dealing with the Federal workforce and 

the gaps that are in there, as well as Inspector General (IG) reports and where Inspector Generals are doing the task and where 

they are not doing the task—and then, also the whistleblower comments, and trying to get information back up. So, I appreciate what 
18 

you are doing. We will continue to be able to stay on that task as 

well—as well as the Chairman and the Ranking Member here. 

I need to ask a couple of questions here, just related to some of 

the testimony. There has been a lot of conversation about needing 

additional staff. Can you help me understand the places—as you 

look at it, obviously, you are not assigning each place. I am not 

talking about 12 here and 13 there. But, if you look at the key 

areas where additional staff are needed—I am guessing it is not in 

management. But, as you are dealing with locations and places— 

is it in the agriculture enforcement area? Is it, specifically, on fielding the border? Is it the ports? Where would you identify the key 

places that need additional staffing? 

Mr. REARDON. Thank you for that question, Senator. I represent 

25,000 employees in the ports of entry, and, right now, we are 

short 3,500 CBP officers around the entire country. I am not sure 

if you saw the photograph of San Ysidro. 

Senator LANKFORD. I can see it. 

Mr. REARDON. They are short 350 officers in San Ysidro. I would 

say that same kind of situation—though not at the same level—not 

the same numbers—is replicated really across a lot of the Southwest border—and, actually, we have the problem in other ports of 

entry as well. And, the problem that I really want to point out is 

that, when I travel around the country and talk to our people—and 

I do quite a bit—the number one thing that gets brought to my attention every single time is staffing and the impact that the lack 

of staffing has on those individuals—and more so even on their 

families. I mean, we are talking about people—I mean, I have 

heard stories about people falling asleep on their drive home, because they have worked days on end—16-hour days. That is just 

wrong—— 

Senator LANKFORD. It is. 

Mr. REARDON [continuing]. To do to human beings. 

Senator LANKFORD. Is this, specifically, ports of entry? Clearly, 

that is an area. Where are the other areas that we would look at 

and identify? 

Mr. REARDON. I will let these gentlemen respond to that, because 

I represent the folks at the ports of entry. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. JUDD. The Border Patrol is very fluid. We do not dictate 

where illegal immigration takes place—unlike the ports of entry. 

The ports of entry know how many airplanes are going to land at 

an airport. They have a good idea of how many vehicles are going 

to come. In Sweet Grass, Montana, they have a very good idea how 

many vehicles are going to come across that port. So, you can basically staff based upon history there. 

With the Border Patrol, we have to constantly be fluid—and we 

have to address the problem where the problem lies. For instance, 

in the 2000s, it was all Tucson, Arizona. Now it is RGV, Texas. 

Next year, it could be Havre, Montana, simply because of the loose 

visa regulations in Canada now. So, we have to be fluid in addressing the problem as the problem arises. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Do you have a comment, Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. Sir, we need people everywhere. We have 5,000 people in 50 States, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the U.S. Virgin 
19 

Islands. And, basically, all of our folks should be doing the same 

mission everywhere that they are at. And, just to give you kind of 

an example of what has been happening on the interior enforcement side—the attacks on September 11, 2001 (9/11) happened 

why? Because people came here on visas—they entered the country 

legally—they never would have been prevented from being here by 

the U.S. Border Patrol. But, the response from Congress was to triple the Border Patrol and make us smaller. And so, we are way 

overdue for some staffing adjustments. And, I promise you that, if 

we had 10,000 more officers tomorrow, we need them all. But, I 

think, with kind of what Senator McCaskill said, I think we need 

to take a look at—we have too many people—too many officers with 

guns, badges, and immigration arrest authority sitting in offices 

doing data entry all day long. And, they need to be out on the 

street. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, that is an area we are hearing loud and 

clear. And, that is an area that we will work with Secretary Kelly 

on, to be able to try to determine what is happening and try to be 

able to push people out of the office—what is slowing down and 

what is requiring all of the data entry and the reporting—not allowing people to actually get into the field. I think that is extremely helpful. The E-Verify system and the enforcement structures—all of those things are in an ongoing conversation here. How 

do we actually strengthen that and be able to bring encouragement 

to it? All of these hiring issues, though, and the push to surge the 

hiring, I look at—and Senator Heitkamp and I have dealt a lot 

with the hiring measures. As many of you may know, Federal Government-wide, on average, in 2015, it took 90 days to hire a Federal employee. In 2016, it took 100 days to hire a Federal employee—except for you guys, where it takes 460 days to hire one 

employee—460 days. And, there is a 65-percent failure rate on the 

polygraph in the middle of that. So, I need help on both of those. 

Why does it take 460 days? Can some of those processes not be 

combined, so they are simultaneous, rather than linear, in order? 

And, why do we have a failure rate of 65 percent? 

Mr. JUDD. ICE does not have a pre-employment polygraph. The 

Border Patrol does. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. JUDD. I will tell you, right now, we are not administering the 

polygraph correctly. Period. We have police officers that have 

passed the polygraph for their Agencies that fail our polygraph. 

That means it is—one of two things happen. That police officer, 

upon entering in as a police officer, became corrupt, or we are not 

administering the polygraph correctly. 

Senator LANKFORD. No one else is even close. 

Mr. JUDD. Nobody comes close to having the three times—Senator Lankford, I will tell you—Senator McCaskill said to draw up 

a plan. I will tell you, we have drawn up plan after plan after plan 

for the Agency. And, the funny thing is, there is nothing in it for 

me. I cannot ‘‘kingdom build.’’ I cannot promote myself. So, when 

we draw up a plan, this plan is altruistic. Whereas, the 

Agency—when the Agency draws up a plan, it is based upon themselves. It is based upon, ‘‘How can I further my career based upon 

this plan?’’ 
20 

I will tell you right now, I have spoken with Commissioner Gil 

Kerlikowske and with Deputy Commissioner Kevin McAleenan 

until I was blue in the face about this polygraph issue. And, they 

just refuse—if they change it, they have to admit that they were 

wrong. And, they refuse to admit that they were wrong. We are not 

administering the polygraph correctly. If we do that, we will not 

have the kinds of problems that we currently face. And, Senator 

Flake is introducing legislation. Why does it take legislation to fix 

a problem that is this simple? 

Senator LANKFORD. Pretty obvious. 

Mr. JUDD. It is. 

Senator LANKFORD. It should be obvious, and this is something 

that we will continue to be able to press on, in the days ahead, because this—I would hope any new Administration would step in, 

take a look at all of the previous things from decades back, and try 

to evaluate. DHS, obviously, is a merger of multiple Agencies to be 

able to come together—and there are still HR issues. There are still 

documents that are missing. There are still process issues that are 

missing. And, we will try to continue to be able to press on this, 

to be able to make sure it gets there. 

I would say to you that, anything you can resubmit needs to be 

resubmitted, so it can get into a process, right now, in the conversation with a new Administration. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, to 

our Ranking Member and to all of our witnesses, thank you for the 

work you do and for your leadership. 

I am reminded that Senator Heitkamp was nice enough, a couple 

of years ago, to take me up along the border with Canada. And, 

Senator Levin did a similar thing, along the border with Canada 

over in Michigan. I learned a lot from both of those trips. And, I 

have been on the border with Mexico, from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas—and a lot of places in between. There are plenty more 

places I did not see. But, among the lessons that I learned is that 

what may work on our border with—first of all, I think everybody 

on this panel—I think everybody in the Senate agrees we need to 

have secure borders. I think most Americans agree we need secure 

borders. The big question is: How do we get them? And, what may 

work well on our Northern border with Canada may not be appropriate in Mexico. What may work in parts of Texas may not work 

in parts of California, along the Mexican border. What may work 

in one part of Texas may not work in another part of Texas. 

The times that I have been on the border to talk with a bunch 

of the folks—your colleagues and compatriots, Mr. Judd—I do not 

remember many of them ever saying that we needed a wall. I just 

do not remember that. I remember them saying, ‘‘We need a fence. 

That might make some sense.’’ In some places, it does. In some 

places, it does not. But, what I have come back with is a focus on 

force multipliers—and force multipliers—I think of force multipliers—how do we make the men and women, who are doing the 

work on the ground, every day, on our border, for example, with 
21 

Mexico—how do we make them more effective? And, you ask them 

questions. And, they will give you ideas, as you know. In some 

cases, one of the things they said is, ‘‘Actually, we—need helicopters that are reliable.’’ And, maybe, it makes sense—instead of 

having a variety of different kinds of helicopters that would require 

different maintenance, different maintenance crews, different technologies, different maintainers, and different supply chains— 

maybe, we should have similar helicopters. Maybe, in some places, 

we need boats. In other cases, we need boat ramps. And, in some 

places, where the grass is really high along the border, horses actually work. In some places, we need stationary observation towers. 

In other places, we need mobile observation towers. In some places, 

we need an aerostat that goes up thousands of feet up in the air, 

with cameras, that will enable us to look deep into Mexico. 

Almost everybody said that we need good intelligence—better intelligence. And, some people said that we need drones. Some said 

that we need fixed-wing aircraft. We need all the above. We need 

all of the above, and we need to figure out which works best. And, 

I always like to say, ‘‘Ask your customer.’’ In this case, the customers are the folks that are working on the border. And, they 

have given us some pretty good advice. 

I would just say, Mr. Judd, if I could, do you believe that some 

of the alternatives that I have mentioned—the force multipliers 

that I have mentioned—make sense? Are there some that make 

more sense than others? Are there some that I have not mentioned—and there probably are—that you would like to bring to our 

attention? 

Mr. JUDD. Force multipliers are extremely important. But, what 

I will tell you is that we do have an awful lot of technology that 

we are just flat out not utilizing. For instance, early in my career, 

helicopters flew at night. We had no problem getting night coverage. And, what is interesting is, the vast majority of the arrests 

that take place on the border happen at night. Right now, the Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) fly very little at night. In 

fact, in RGV, we had to use the Coast Guard to fly sorties in certain areas. And, when their apprehensions became so great, it is 

my understanding that AMO asked them not to fly anymore at 

night, in RGV, because it was making them look bad. 

So, what we have to do is, we have to take the technology and 

the resources that we do have, and we have to utilize that technology and the resources correctly. But, the problem is, when we 

see AMO not utilizing the technology correctly—or the way that we 

have utilized it before—and yet, this individual, who was the head 

of AMO, is now the Acting Deputy Commissioner, we are rewarding ineptness that has happened under his watch. 

Now, I do not know this individual, personally. But, I can tell 

you that, because we are a separate Agency—which never should 

have happened in the first place—in the past, the Border Patrol 

had their own air unit, and we got to dictate when the flight hours 

were—when the flight time was. But, because we created this huge 

bureaucracy—this ‘‘kingdom building’’ that I mentioned before—because we did that, we separated it out. And now, AMO has complete and total control. And, we have lost a lot of the flight time 

and flight hours. 
22 

So, we have to utilize the technologies that we currently have 

better. And, we are just not doing that. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Our Chairman, along with 

Senator Heitkamp and I, has traveled to parts of the ‘‘Iron Triangle’’—Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—and I am going to 

meet later today with the President of Honduras, President Juan 

Orlando Hernandez, to talk about some of these issues that we are 

talking about. 

One of the things I have heard our Chairman say many times 

is, we need to focus on the root causes of illegal immigration. And, 

it goes back to our addiction, in this country, to illegal narcotics, 

which are trafficked through these countries—through Honduras, 

Guatemala, and El Salvador, as you know. And, if we do not focus 

on trying to make those places more habitable—to places where 

there is more hope and rule of law—then we can deploy all kinds 

of assets—human assets and other technology assets—along the 

border, and we will not really make the kind of progress we otherwise could make. When General John Kelly was before us a month 

or two ago, for his confirmation, he pretty much said the same 

thing. 

Let me just ask for the three of you just to react briefly to what 

I have just said and what General Kelly said. Just very briefly. 

Mr. JUDD. We have to be proactive. We cannot be reactive. Our 

intel is reactive, instead of being proactive. If we take a proactive 

approach, we will be much more successful. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Reardon, any comments? 

Mr. REARDON. Yes, I would agree with that—that we need to be 

proactive. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. REARDON. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Crane. 

Mr. CRANE. We definitely do need to be proactive on the intel 

side. We have been telling ERO for a long time that we need to do 

more intel gathering. We are encountering these people. We are 

interviewing them, and we are not really gathering intelligence on 

them. We are not asking, ‘‘Hey, where are these fraud document 

houses at?’’ or ‘‘What kind of drug trafficking information could you 

have for us—things that we could pass up the pipeline?’’ We are 

just not doing it. 

And so, there are a lot of simple answers out there that, really 

quickly—to where we could be more proactive and more aggressive 

in our law enforcement. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you all. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I want to 

thank all of the representatives for being here, today. It is good to 

see some union boys at the table. 

I sent a letter off yesterday to Acting Commissioner Kevin 

McAleenan—you said it better than I did, Brandon—and they plan 

to hire 5,000 folks for the Southern border. The Northern border 

is kind of important to me, and I am sure it is important to all of 
23 

you guys, too. So, just to get a baseline, we were talking about, on 

the Northern border—Brandon, I know you talked about how your 

guys and gals have to be fluid. But, just overall, do you guys have 

any numbers on what you might be short on for the Northern border? 

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely. In fact, this is talking about being 

proactive, instead of reactive. What I am scared of is that we are 

going to throw all of our resources down on the Southwest border 

and we are going to leave our Northern border wide open. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. JUDD. If you look at the cost that a smuggler charges to 

bring somebody up through Mexico now, it is actually more costeffective to fly them into Canada. And so, we are creating a situation where we are not going to have enough agents up on the Canadian border. If we hire 5,000 new agents, we must at least put 

1,500 of those agents on the Northern border—not all down on the 

Southwest border. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you for that. I will get to the ports 

in a second, with you, Mr. Reardon. But, we talked about hiring 

and the polygraph issue. This is not the first time I have heard 

about it either. And, I do not know about you guys, but I have 

made plenty of mistakes, and you need to admit them and move 

on, or you never get it fixed. And, I would expect the leadership 

within the Agency would do that, to do the right thing here. 

But, the question becomes—and you brought it up a little earlier, 

Brandon—that there is new immigration—I guess that is the word 

you would use—policy up in Canada. I mean, I think the statistics 

show that there have been a lot more detentions happening over 

the last 6 months, since this policy went into effect. Does this shift 

your priorities or not? And, if you know this—because I think you 

do—do the folks above you know this? Because, I think, truthfully, 

everybody focuses on that Southern border. You just pointed it 

out—when, in fact, they will go to the weakest link. And, if the 

Northern border is the weakest link, that is where it will happen. 

Could you comment on that? 

Mr. JUDD. Well, yes, just really quickly, in the mid-1990s, the 

problem area for illegal immigration was San Diego and El Paso, 

Texas. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. JUDD. And so, what the Border Patrol did was, they threw 

all of their resources there, thinking that they were not going to 

create this funnel through Tucson, Arizona. But, in fact, they did 

create that funnel. And, they are doing the exact same thing, right 

now. They are creating this vacuum where they are going to force 

illegal immigration to start coming through Canada, because it is 

too cost-prohibitive to come up across the Southwest border. 

The leaders do know that. But, again, our leadership is always 

reactive. They are very rarely proactive. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Let us talk about the ports just for a second. And, I will start with Mr. Reardon. You talked about being 

short about 3,500 folks. And, you seemed to indicate that was on 

the Southern border, alone. And, correct me if I am wrong. Go 

ahead. 
24 

Mr. REARDON. That was actually just in San Ysidro, the 350— 

3,500 is nationwide. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So, how many of those folks are needed on 

the Northern ports? 

Mr. REARDON. Well, I can give you, certainly, an example. We 

are short nearly 100 people in Boston, in Buffalo, and in the Seattle Field Office. 

Senator TESTER. And, those are each 100 in each one? 

Mr. REARDON. Yes, 100 each. 

Senator TESTER. OK. And, this applies to any one of you. I mean, 

right now, I believe CBP needs about 1,700 just to get up to the 

levels we are at now. Now we are talking about another 5,000 

above that. You talked about the polygraph. I am asking this question, honestly. Why are we not getting even up to staffing? Is it 

just the polygraph? Is it pay? Is it working conditions? What is it? 

Why are people not wanting to go to work there? 

Mr. JUDD. It is all of the above. Senator McCaskill, I want to tell 

you right now, I pray that you do not stop Border Patrol agents 

from going to ICE. That will kill morale, exponentially. 

Senator, the problem is, agents do not want to work for the Border Patrol, because we have this issue—if you look at the Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEWS), we are at the bottom—and 

we have always been at the bottom. If we are not dead last, we are 

always somewhere right at the bottom. 

Senator TESTER. But, why are you dead last? 

Mr. JUDD. Because we have this management structure that is 

so over-heavy and that is so overbearing that agents just do not 

like it. When I came into the Border Patrol, I had to show up for 

work an hour before work. And, as a trainee, I spent that hour just 

getting yelled at. That is all I did. I just got yelled at. 

And so, when you have that culture—we brought in—Commissioner Kerlikowske brought in Chief Mark Morgan to fix the culture of the Border Patrol. And, all he did when he came in was surround himself with the exact same people that were the problem 

in the first place. And so, we have to fix that. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Do you have an estimate of how many people on the Northern or the Southern border are nearing retirement? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes. And, that is another problem that we are going 

to face. We already have this high attrition rate. And, on top of 

that, in a couple of years from now, we are going to start seeing 

the people that we hired in the mid-1990s—we are going to start 

seeing them start to retire. I am going to be eligible for retirement 

in just a couple of years—and I am young. And so, we have a lot 

of individuals that are coming up that are going to be retirement 

eligible. And so, that is going to add to the attrition as well. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. JUDD. We have problems. 

Senator TESTER. I came in right as Senator McCaskill was asking her questions on the wall, so I did not hear it all. But, I will 

just tell the Committee this: You are right, we do need to massage 

this stuff. But, right now, the Administration is asking for a reprogramming of $20 million—not to look at technology, not to look 

at drones, and not to look at anything other than a concrete wall. 
25 

And, if we allow this to happen without getting input from the 

folks that are sitting at that table, we are not doing the American 

taxpayer justice—and we are not doing justice to the folks who 

want to see this country secure, which is all of us. So, thank you 

very much. 

Mr. JUDD. Senator, may I address that? 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. JUDD. I was just told a couple of days ago by a very high 

leader that union bosses should not be involved in certain processes. Now, I was very offended, because I am not a union boss. 

I am a Border Patrol agent. Period. I am a Border Patrol agent 

that was elected to represent Border Patrol agents. And, to have 

somebody tell me that I should not be involved in certain processes, 

especially when I am a Border Patrol agent and when I am in 

every single area speaking with agents almost on a daily basis— 

and to be told that I should not be involved in that process—that 

is a problem. 

Senator TESTER. We are missing out on information that we need 

to have to make good decisions. If you do not have good information, you do not make good decisions. You all delivered good information. Thank you, guys, for being here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, there is a reason you are involved in 

this process here, today. So, we appreciate your testimonies. 

I will also say that, in terms of walls and fences, one of the reasons I went to Israel, right before Christmas, was to inspect their 

fence. Very effective—$2.9 million per mile—it works. It cut their 

illegal immigration rate from, I think, 16,000 to 18—one, eight. So, 

fencing does work in the right spots—and that is why we are looking at this, so we can provide better guidance for better policy. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you so much, and thank you for everything that you do every day. I have spent a lot of time on both borders. And so, I want to kind of get right to it. 

Number one, I have to stick up for my friends at AMO. They are 

short on pilots, they are short-staffed, and they have the same— 

I think the pilots would give you the same argument that you are 

giving us, about how people up here do not understand. And, they 

want to be in the mission. It is clear to me they want to be in the 

mission. And, the guys who are flying are trying to assert the kind 

of inputs that they think they need. So, I just have to kind of stick 

up a little bit for the AMO guys. 

The Northern border—last Congress we passed a Northern border bill that says that you have to tell us the threat and you have 

to tell us what we are going to do about it. I want you guys to inject yourself into that process. I want to see that threat assessment 

and that plan reflect the ideas that you have. We have huge staffing problems on the Northern border. 

Let me tell you a couple of stories. We have a Border Patrol 

agent who lives 50 miles from Portal, North Dakota. They make 

him drive his private car 50 miles to Portal, to pick up his Border 

Patrol car to patrol the border, and go 100 miles, so he can drive 

back to Portal to pick up his personal car, because they changed 
26 

the policy on whether you could take the car home. Now, that is 

something that is ridiculous, but it affects morale. 

And, let me tell you about Customs and Border Protection. I have 

done a lot of discussing and talking, especially on the Northern 

border. We have a gentleman up there in Portal, who has worked 

for Customs and Border Protection for 30 years. He has a family 

in Kentucky or Tennessee—one of those States. He wants to go 

home. He wants to do just a quick transfer and go home. They will 

not let him go home, and they work him 16 hours a day. And, he 

is in the mission and he is not giving up, and he is kind of a grandfather to a lot of the new guys coming on. And, I think that is one 

of the reasons why they will not let him go, because he is a mentor 

to the new agents and keeps morale up. But, why would we abuse 

this person, who has given so much to our country and so much 

to border protection? 

Those stories need to be told, and they need to be told clearly. 

We have a bill called the Flexible Hiring and Improving Recruitment, Retention, and Education Act of 2016 (Flexible HIRE Act), 

which would get beyond the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) kind of nonsense, and that goes there and says that, if you 

have a need, we have to give the ability to hire directly to the 

Agencies—and we have to speed up this process. I hope you guys 

will take a look at that. I hope your unions will take a look at that 

and weigh in. 

Senator Lankford is absolutely correct. We are on this. We are 

concerned that you have somebody that came out of the military— 

a veteran, who wants to continue serving the country. Guess what? 

We make them retake a polygraph. And, even though they have 

the highest clearance, they do not pass the polygraph. That is 

crazy. It is insane. We have to get beyond these problems. 

We also have an opportunity—regardless of what you think has 

happened politically—to hit the reset button—to rethink how we 

are going to do this and what we view to be situational awareness 

in this country on the border. We cannot hit that reset button unless we do some of the things that you have heard here, which are 

talking to employers and doing some white-collar investigations, 

which should help quite a bit—doing something, in terms of 

verifying citizenship, when people are being hired—making that 

easier. And then, obviously, figuring out a plan to deal with the 

overstaying of visas. I think, Mr. Crane, you clearly made that 

point, in terms of 9/11 and what we need to do to have interior enforcement. 

But, with all of that said, we need to get politics out of border 

protection. And, we need to start talking about what works and 

what does not work. And, I can tell you, I have spent a lot of time 

on the Southern border. Building a wall—a concrete wall—across 

the Southern border will not enhance border security. Will fencing 

and walls help? My biggest concern is what is happening at the 

ports of entry. When you have a line like that, what are you missing? Because, most of you guys would say most of the really horrible drugs—whether it is fentanyl or whether it is heroin coming 

across that border—are going to come in through the ports of entry. 
27 

I also know that we have a lot of people walking across the border and jumping over Normandy fences. That is not particularly 

helpful, either. 

And so, I want you guys to commit to us that you are going to 

once again—and we can help you with this—be involved in that 

reset button, be involved in the Northern border strategy, be involved in the Southern border strategy, and think about the ports 

of entry. 

Mr. Reardon, I think you want to comment. 

Mr. REARDON. I do. And, thank you very much, Senator. NTEU 

was very interested in playing a role in that process. I will tell you 

that, number one, I have been very appreciative of you, in terms 

of the pay flexibilities that you have talked about. And, I have testified in front of you before about things that have gone on in the 

Bakken region. And, I think we need to pay attention to some of 

the opportunities that we have for the utilization of pay flexibilities, right now, to take care of some of these situations that we 

have, where people do not want to go to work at San Ysidro. It is 

very difficult to get people to want to go down there and deal with 

what you see every day in that picture. I think, to be able to use 

recruitment awards and those kinds of things are important. 

But, I also think that we need to make sure that we are paying 

attention to the hiring process. I do not remember who, but somebody mentioned the length of time that it takes to bring somebody 

on board. The numbers that I have heard—and they vary, but I 

will give you the range that I have heard. At CBP, it takes anywhere from 105 applicants to 150 applicants to generate a new employee. That, to me, is just incredible. I have gotten the stories. I 

have heard the horror stories, candidly, from folks who have taken 

the polygraph. And, they have been sitting in a polygraph for 8 

hours, in some cases. The fact that 65 percent—and we heard that 

number earlier—are failing, when the expected failure rate is 

somewhere in the 25 percent to 30 percent range, is outlandish. So, 

I think we do need to fix that. 

In terms also related to hiring, I have heard horror stories where 

an individual has to go to an interview in one location, and then 

several weeks later or a month later, they have to go somewhere 

else in a different part of the country. They have to pay for that. 

And, that makes it very difficult for people. And, they say, ‘‘I do 

not need this,’’ and they go work somewhere else—at their local 

sheriff’s office or wherever. 

The fact is that it takes, in some cases, 16 months to 18 months 

to bring a new hire on board. How many people in this country can 

afford to sit around for 16 months to 18 months before they can 

be brought on board? So, the hiring process has to be looked at 

very carefully as well. So, thank you very much. 

Mr. JUDD. May I jump in? You touched on something that is very 

interesting. You talked about vehicle assignments and how you 

have to drive so far to get to—this is something that I have been 

pressing the Agency on forever. We could save millions of dollars 

if we would actually use the industry best practice, which is to 

have the agents deployed to the field directly from their homes— 

instead of showing up to a Border Patrol station, where we pay 

millions of dollars—that we actually do not use—other than just to 
28 

show up there. We could actually deploy, and it would actually 

save time. We would get more time on task of our agents if they 

self-deployed straight from their home, just like any department of 

public safety (DPS) officer, just like any sheriff’s officer, and just 

like any police force. 

Industry best practices have shown—but the Border Patrol 

seems to be behind the curve, because we always say that we have 

never done it that way, so we are just not going to. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, they may seem like small things, but 

they are huge things to the personnel. And so, stay engaged at a 

very high level, and we will help you do that. 

Mr. CRANE. Ma’am, could I comment on this vehicle thing? I 

was—to throw this in there—and it is a whistleblower thing, I 

think. At ICE, we have kind of done the complete opposite thing. 

They have taken our vehicles—Congress gave us money to buy undercover vehicles—basically unmarked vehicles—to do our law enforcement mission out in the field. Managers have taken the majority of those vehicles and their personal take-home rides at taxpayer 

expense. They have no mission-based need to take them. They do 

not respond to things. While our officers then do not have enough 

vehicles out in the field to perform the mission, and we literally 

have people in—do you know how big a 13-passenger detention van 

is?—a great big marked—they are out there trying to do undercover work in 13-passenger detention vans with ringers on them 

when they go in reverse, right? And so, at 5 o’clock in the morning, 

when you went too far down a one-way and you need to back up, 

every window is opening up, going, ‘‘Hey, there is ICE,’’ because 

our managers have taken all of our vehicles. And, it has been reported to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and OSC. And, it 

has been in the media. And, they just continue to do it, because 

they can. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, Senator Heitkamp, let me tell you what 

we are going to do here. Again, I got a smile on my face when you 

said ‘‘crazy’’ and ‘‘insane.’’ It is. I mean, you are defining bureaucracy. And so, what we are going to do is, as a Committee and as 

Members, we are going to sit down with folks like these three—and 

more—and we are going to find out the crazy and insane things— 

and rather than have to worry about legislation, because, as Mr. 

Judd said, the Department can do these things under their own authority. We will find out what they can, but we are going to highlight it, we are going to provide the oversight, and we are going to 

make sure the Department actually does these things—get rid of 

these crazy and insane policies that they have enacted that prevent 

these good men from actually fulfilling their missions. 

So, this is not rocket science. This is not hard. And, we are just 

going to get this done, OK? Because, there are a lot of areas of 

agreement here, and I think we can make some significant improvements without having to try and pass a law—because you 

know how hard that is. But, again, I think we have a good Secretary in General Kelly. I think he will work with us, and so this 

is what we will do as a Committee. And, we are going to hop on 

this. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, I would assume—Mr. Judd and Mr. 

Crane, I saw you at rallies. I know you were big supporters of 
29 

President Trump. I think you guys have a lot more power than I 

do. Trust me, you guys have a lot more stick with this Administration than a whole bunch of us on this Committee. So, hopefully, 

with that, in addition to our work on this Committee—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. We will work together. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. Maybe we can actually move 

the needle on this management problem. And, I think we are all 

in. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, I am dead serious about this. It 

should not be this hard, and we are going to make sure it is not. 

Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for your 

candor this morning. You represent the rank-and-file, and they deserve to have a voice at the table. So, I appreciate that. 

Mr. Crane, starting with you, you have been very candid about 

what is going on with your troops. Tell me, how many members do 

you have? 

Mr. CRANE. We represent approximately 5,000 employees. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. And, it would be to that number that the 

request has been made—that there would be 10,000 added to that 

number, correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HARRIS. So, you have described a ‘‘good ol’ boy network.’’ 

You have described rank-and-file folks tripping over managers in 

the field. You have described the morale issue being one of the 

worst of any Agency. You have described something that concerns 

me greatly—and all of us, which is the officer safety issues. Tell me 

something. How long do you believe that it will take to fix the dysfunction in the Agency? 

Mr. CRANE. It is going to depend on who we have as a leader. 

If we get a good Director—— 

Senator HARRIS. Let us say we have the best leader possible. 

How long do you think it will take to fix it? Because, it sounds like 

it is pretty systemic. 

Mr. CRANE. It is very systemic, but I think that, once you come 

in and you say, ‘‘There is going to be accountability and this is how 

it is’’—and when people do not follow that direction and we start 

getting rid of people—then you are going to see changes very quickly. 

I watched a hearing that they did with the U.S. Secret Service 

(USSS)—with Chairman Jason Chaffetz on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR), and I think 

they said something to the effect that they had something around 

13 directors, and out of them, 12 of them were fired. I mean, those 

are the types of actions—I am not saying we need to fire all of our 

managers, but I am saying that you can make changes, I think, 

fairly quickly. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. Well, based on the number of 5,000 members—and you also mentioned that ICE has no policies—I would 

suggest that it is going to be, probably, at least a couple of years 

before whatever the leader wants to have happen actually hits the 

ground. So, I am going to ask you—in light of that reality, it seems 
30 

to me that it is not necessarily a good idea to bring on 10,000 more 

members, when those policies are not in place. And, I would ask 

you to tell me your candid concerns about doing that, as it relates 

to ongoing morale issues. 

For example, I am going to assume that you have members who 

have come in, as we have heard from Mr. Judd—folks who have 

dedicated their careers to this issue, came in when standards were 

high, when their morale was good, and they have been doing a 

good job and working in earnest on behalf of the people of our 

country. If you start bringing in 10,000 more folks, who have not 

been adequately trained and are coming into an institution where 

there is dysfunction—do you not see continuing morale problems 

for your members? 

Mr. CRANE. The morale problem is actually—it is absolutely always going to continue—there is no doubt about that—until we 

make a change on that end. But, we have to get some more officers 

out in the field, and I do not believe at all that it is going to be 

anything but positive, in terms of the mission, which is always— 

yes, we are union folks, but we got into this because we care about 

the Agencies and the mission first. And, getting some more officers 

and employees out in the field—that is going to help us do our mission. It is incredible what you see out in the field. It is like our employees are on autopilot. They are almost without leadership. 

Senator HARRIS. Right, but let us get into that a little bit more 

specifically, please. The chief justice of the California Supreme 

Court put in a request to Secretary Kelly that ICE stop deportation 

agents from making apprehensions at State courthouses. Can you 

tell me—is there a policy, a directive, or a training for your members on safe zones and where they can and cannot—or may or 

should not—detain folks? And, in particular, let us talk about 

courthouses. Let us talk about schools. Let us talk about places of 

worship. Is there, to your understanding, an understanding among 

your members about what is a safe zone and where they should not 

go? 

Mr. CRANE. So, there are a couple of different policies, and there 

is actually one that deals with—they are called ‘‘sensitive locations,’’ and they would talk about the proximity to a school or 

something like that, where we might—— 

Senator HARRIS. OK. What about places of worship? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, that is also on the list of sensitive locations. 

Senator HARRIS. And, what about courthouses? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, I want to say to you, on the courthouse part, 

that we recently had, in our area, a situation where—and there is 

a guidance on it, but our officers were forced to try to apprehend 

this person on the street, instead of inside the courthouse, with the 

bailiffs and—— 

Senator HARRIS. Are you and I talking about the domestic violence victim that was contacted? Because, that is one I have in 

mind. 

Mr. CRANE. No, ma’am. What happened then is that the officers 

got outside and tried to make the arrest. The subject then assaulted them. It, from my understanding, came close to that individual almost getting one of their guns that could have, obviously, 

been used on them. So, it is a very dangerous situation to put our 
31 

officers in, when it is so much easier for them to be able to go into 

a court and actually make the arrest in the court. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. But, here is the concern I have. In an Agency that you have described as being ‘‘highly dysfunctional,’’ how can 

I be sure—because I actually am not satisfied—that your agents 

know what to do, in terms of the policies that have been enunciated by this Administration? For example, there are, from a 

memo—I think it was February 20th—seven priorities—when 

Elaine Duke was here, in her testimony to become the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, I asked her about those seven priority 

enforcement areas. And, she said to me that they are in descending 

order of priority. Is that your understanding—that those seven factors are in descending order of priority for enforcement? 

Mr. CRANE. I am sorry, ma’am. What list are you looking at? 

Senator HARRIS. The list that was issued February 20th—the 

memo through DHS. 

Mr. CRANE. The Secretary Kelly memo? 

Senator HARRIS. Yes. Are you familiar with it? 

Mr. CRANE. I am. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you familiar with the seven factors? And, 

are you familiar with the policy of the Department, as it relates to 

the priority of each of those seven factors? And, are your members 

aware of the priority? 

Mr. CRANE. Can you tell me what page you are on, so I can look 

at exactly what you are talking about? 

Senator HARRIS. It is a memo that was issued by the Department 

of Homeland Security. It has been widely published, and it was 

part of the Executive Order, as it relates to new policies for DHS. 

It includes: one, people convicted of a criminal offense; two, people 

charged with a criminal offense; three, people that may have committed an act that is chargeable, which sounds to me like the 

standard of there is suspicion of committing a crime. You are not 

familiar with this? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, I am, ma’am. I have it right here. 

Senator HARRIS. So, tell me, what is your understanding about 

the instruction your members have received about the 

prioritization of this list? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, my understanding of these priorities is that 

they are, of course, priorities, but—— 

Senator HARRIS. Are they each equal in weight? 

Mr. CRANE. I would say that they are probably not all equal in 

weight, but—— 

Senator HARRIS. And, what has the training been for your members about the prioritization of these seven factors? Elaine Duke, 

like I said, in testifying before this Committee, said that they are 

in descending order. Is that your understanding—that it is a descending order of priority? 

Mr. CRANE. I think the priority would be in that descending 

order, but—— 

Senator HARRIS. Have your members been trained on that? 

Mr. CRANE. I am not aware of any specific training on this 

memo, ma’am, no. 

Senator HARRIS. So, does this speak to, again, the concern that 

you have about dysfunction in the Department? I would believe, 
32 

and it has been my experience in law enforcement, that when 

troops on the ground have not been trained, it leads to dysfunction, 

because there is a lack of consistency, accountability, and direction. 

So, I am concerned about this—and I would like to know whether 

you are concerned about it. 

Mr. CRANE. Ma’am, we have some great employees—great officers—— 

Senator HARRIS. That is not my question. 

Mr. CRANE. Well, it is part of the answer. 

Senator HARRIS. I am not talking about looking into the hearts 

of the agents. I am talking about whether they are trained. 

Mr. CRANE. I am not looking at their hearts, either. I am talking 

about the jobs that they do every day in the field for you and everybody else in this country, right? 

Senator HARRIS. Yes. Are you concerned about their training? 

Mr. CRANE. Oh, I am always concerned about training. We always want more training. 

Senator HARRIS. Have you made a request—and if not, I would 

request that you do make a request—of Secretary Kelly that your 

members are trained on the policy priorities for the Department, 

as it relates to those seven factors? Because, they are varied. And, 

to your point, your folks are barely doing the job that they want 

to do, because they do not have the resources. So, there are going 

to have to be priorities, and they are going to need to know what 

the Agency’s priorities are, so they can have some level of job satisfaction. 

Mr. CRANE. But, priorities do not work the way on the street that 

people in—for example, in the Obama administration—I think you 

are trying to box us into. It does not work that way. It is not real 

life. 

Senator HARRIS. No, sir. I am talking about these seven factors. 

Mr. CRANE. I understand what you are talking about, and I am 

talking about—— 

Senator HARRIS. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that—— 

Mr. CRANE [continuing]. Applying them in the field—— 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. We could follow up to these conversations, and I would like something in writing from these witnesses about what training is happening, consistent with Elaine 

Duke’s testimony before this Committee, about the priorities. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You will always be able to submit additional 

questions for the record (QFRs), so be prepared to do that. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hoeven. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank all three of you for being here. And, I would like to thank 

all three of you for the work your members do—and know how 

much we appreciate you and the hard job that you do. I chaired 

the Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Senate Appropriations Committee for the last several years and was down—and I 

have seen your work on the Northern border. Of course, I am from 

the Northern border. But, I have also seen your work on the Southern border. 
33 

And, I agree, the sentiment that I got from your people is, they 

really want to do the job—and the same with ICE on an interior 

mission. Invariably, when I talked to them, they wanted to do the 

job. As you said, they signed up because they believe in what they 

are doing. So, thank you for that, on the front end. 

I would like to ask each one of you just your top three priorities, 

in terms of addressing the personnel issues in each area for Border 

Patrol, for CBP, and for ICE—top three things you think really 

work in addressing the personnel issues. 

Mr. JUDD. First, we have to have pay parity. That is the first 

thing that you have to give us. If you do not give us pay parity, 

you are always going to have agents looking to other Agencies that 

will pay them more. 

Second, we have to address the morale issue, and that morale 

issue has existed even when we did have pay parity. We have to 

address the morale issue. 

Senator HOEVEN. And, the main thing in addressing the morale 

issue—— 

Mr. JUDD. Accountability from the top down, instead of from the 

bottom up. 

Senator HOEVEN. Accountability. 

Mr. JUDD. That has to be done. And, the third issue, as far as 

the hiring goes, we have to start administering these polygraphs 

correctly. We have to. If we do not, we are just not going to be able 

to hire people. 

Senator HOEVEN. And, the reason for the disparity—the main 

reason for the disparity in the polygraphs is? 

Mr. JUDD. I believe that Commissioner Kerlikowske had an initiative that he put forward, and I believe that, to show that initiative, he had to have a high failure rate. And so, now that Commissioner Kerlikowske is no longer around—I am sorry, the anti-corruption initiative is what he put forth. Now that we are going to 

have a new Commissioner, I believe that we get to hit the reset 

button—as Senator Heitkamp said—and we can actually do it 

right, because if he was to change the way he did the polygraphs, 

he would have to have admitted that he was wrong. And, we know 

people just do not like admitting that they are wrong. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. I understand. OK. That is helpful. 

Thank you. Mr. Reardon. 

Mr. REARDON. Thank you, Senator. I would say the number one 

issue in the ports is the staffing—the number of staff that are—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Staffing numbers? 

Mr. REARDON. Staffing numbers, yes, sir. 

The second thing is to fix the segmented hiring process. I think 

that needs to be tightened up. 

Senator HOEVEN. That means what, ‘‘segmented hiring process?’’ 

Mr. REARDON. Well, for example, there are many cases where an 

individual has to go to one location on one day to go through some 

initial interviews and that sort of thing. And then, a couple of 

weeks later—or several weeks later, they have to go somewhere 

else. There is a lot of expense and a lot of time that is involved 

with that. And, to the extent possible, where you can get people to 

be able to go to one location and in a more concise period—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes, more coherence in the hiring process. 
34 

Mr. REARDON. Absolutely. 

Senator HOEVEN. I got you. 

Mr. REARDON. And then, I would also suggest that the polygraph 

process needs to—— 

Senator HOEVEN. OK. So, we doubled up on one there. 

Mr. REARDON. Yes, that is a significant problem. 

Senator HOEVEN. And, do you like Mr. Judd’s general explanation of how to address that on the polygraph? 

Mr. REARDON. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. OK. Mr. Crane. 

Mr. CRANE. Sir, just so everybody knows, we do not have a polygraph right now, but it is on our horizon. I think they are going 

to implement it in 2018 or something—is the plan. But, for our 

three things—if I understand your question correctly—on the hiring process, one, I think, for us is that we want the Agency to innovate. We want them to look at the best way to do this to get these 

officers that are in a detention center or doing data entry out on 

the street—replace them, maybe, with lower-paid administrative 

type people—I am sorry. Did you have a question, sir? 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes, well, this is interesting. Innovate, and I 

am trying to catch up with you on what you mean by that. So, keep 

going. 

Mr. CRANE. So, what I mean by that, again, is that we have too 

many officers out there now that are sitting in offices with a gun 

and a badge and this limited immigration arrest authority—that 

everybody wants task forces and all of these different things—and 

they are in our offices doing data entry all day long. We need to 

replace them with administrative folks, who can do that data entry 

work for them. Yes, police work is a lot of paperwork. They are still 

going to have a lot of paperwork as officers when they make arrests 

and things like that—prosecutions. But, the data entry and some 

of those other things, we can bring in people that are paid less— 

that do not have arrest authority—to take their place and do a lot 

of that work. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, that would indicate that you need more 

non-officers, in essence—you need more administrative assistants. 

That is, I think, a very important point, in terms of how you attack 

the hiring process. 

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely. In part, we do need more administrative 

folks. We need a shift in our perspective, though, about how we get 

work done in general. Right now, I think ICE is just wanting to 

do things as business as usual. We are saying, ‘‘No, let us take a 

look at what we do and how we do it—and if we can do it better.’’ 

Senator HOEVEN. So, I think you are making a strong point here. 

Is that happening? 

Mr. CRANE. No. 

Senator HOEVEN. I mean, is the Agency looking at saying, ‘‘Hey, 

it is the mix of workers that can make a real difference here, too. 

We can make our resources go further, and we can make our 

agents much more effective if they are on the street doing their job 

and they have some administrative backup or assistance that gets 

the clerical aspects done?’’ I mean, that is true of every law enforcement agency, so I think that is a very compelling point—you are 
35 

talking to General Kelly, the Administration, DHS, and, obviously, 

in ICE. 

Mr. CRANE. And, we have conveyed this very briefly to General 

Kelly last week, but, to be clear, we are still going to need more 

officers, in addition—— 

Senator HOEVEN. I understand. I am not saying that you do not 

need more officers. 

Mr. CRANE. Right. 

Senator HOEVEN. I am just saying that the mix you hire matters. 

And, it seems to me that that goes to the point the Chairman, our 

illustrious leader here, just made a minute ago. And, that is, instead of passing a law, we can help you become more effective with 

those kind of changes. 

Mr. CRANE. Right. And, I think that, in that innovation, we need 

to look at expanding the duties of the ERO officers, so that they 

can better perform their mission out on the street. 

There are a lot of things that we could be doing right now, but 

I think there is kind of this attitude at ICE that everybody needs 

to stay in their lanes—HSI does that, so ERO should not. And, 

trust me, there is plenty of criminality out there to go around for 

everybody. We could have something, where there is a right of first 

refusal or something for HSI, but it does not need to mean that everybody stays in their lanes and they are in these little boxes, 

right? So, there is a lot that we need to do—so that is what I mean 

by innovation. 

The other two things, I think, that we need to make sure that 

we do through this process, is not only maintain our standards, but 

I think, in a few areas, we need to up them. And, the other part 

of that is, we need the time to do this right. Yes, we can run some 

people through the academy fairly quickly. We know that. But, 

there is a sweet spot in there, and we need to hit that. And, we 

do not want all of these newbies coming out in the field too fast, 

because, when they come out of the academy—and I am not saying 

anything bad about the academy—the training that they get—but 

they do not know a whole lot. And, they are going to have to be 

shadowing somebody for quite a while before they really know 

what they are doing. 

And so, that is kind of what we are looking for: innovation, maintaining our standards—maybe raising them—and having the time 

to do it right. 

Senator HOEVEN. Very good. I think, in all cases, your recommendations are extremely helpful. And, it seems to me, if followed, they will make a real difference for the Agency. Thank you. 

Mr. CRANE. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Daines. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McCaskill. And, thank you all for testifying today. 

Mr. Judd, it is good to see you again, and thank you for your 

service on Montana’s border. It is very much appreciated. 

You all touched on some similar needs—and that is to enforce existing law. Mr. Judd, under the last Administration, the Border Patrol had disappointingly low morale. In fact, you mentioned it was 
36 

the lowest of the three Administrations you had served under. In 

addition to pay and polygraph challenges, my understanding is, one 

of the root causes has been the inability to enforce existing laws. 

How will President Trump encouraging law enforcement to enforce the law help morale? 

Mr. JUDD. First off, Border Patrol agents signed up for a job to 

be law enforcement agents. They did not sign up to be humanitarian specialists. That is the first thing that we have to look at. 

In enforcing the laws and actually allowing us to do our jobs, you 

are allowing the employee to do what the employee signed up for 

in the first place. A lot of these individuals grew up always wanting to be in law enforcement. They wanted to serve and protect the 

public. And, if we allow them to do that, morale will increase exponentially. 

In fact, Senator Daines, I will tell you that there has been a huge 

spike in the morale—on November 8th, there was a huge spike in 

the morale of the Border Patrol, simply because we knew that this 

new Administration was going to actually allow us to do our jobs— 

take the handcuffs off of us and put the handcuffs on the criminals. 

Senator DAINES. So, I know recruitment can be a challenge. 

What will that mean for recruitment and, frankly, probably most 

importantly, our national security? 

Mr. JUDD. Oh, I think that it is going to help with recruitment. 

But, I will tell you right now, we do not have a problem with recruitment. We have plenty of people that want to be Border Patrol 

agents. We have a problem hiring those individuals, once they 

apply for the job. 

Senator DAINES. And, why is that? 

Mr. JUDD. Several factors. The main factor is the three times the 

national average of polygraph failures. We just do not administer 

the polygraph correctly. 

Senator DAINES. Is that fixable? 

Mr. JUDD. It is. It is fixable. And, now that we can hit the reset 

button and now that we have new individuals, we can actually fix 

the polygraph. 

Senator DAINES. I want to switch gears and talk about drug flow. 

Virtually all of the methamphetamines in Montana are now coming 

from south of the border and are trafficked through our interior. 

We have seen the price drop in half with this influx, and now more 

than 90 percent of all drug offenses in Montana are methamphetamine-related. This impacts our communities, increasing violent 

crimes. We are seeing a disturbing rise in child endangerment and 

foster care caseloads. It is a tragic, negative spiral that we are seeing. 

Mr. Crane, in your testimony, you mentioned that interior enforcement is the key to effective border security. In addition to 

more personnel, what can we do to stop the movement of drugs? 

Mr. CRANE. Well, sir, I think, for us, really, it is just always a 

big-picture thing, on the ERO side. That is something that we 

could use—is Title 21 authority, probably, at ERO—and somebody 

to let us be more involved in drug prosecution. We have, basically, 

through policy within the Agency, this little turf war going on, 

where they do not want ERO agents doing a lot of different types 

of things, I think, like drug interdiction and worksite firearms 
37 

prosecution. While some of it does happen in a limited amount, it 

is very rarely. And so, we need to expand the duties of these ERO 

officers. They are fully capable of doing it, and they are out on the 

street coming in contact with things. 

But, in addition to that, when we start enforcing a law on these 

businesses and on the interior, sending that message to the rest of 

the world, I think what you are going to find is that law enforcement—from the patrol—from everybody sitting here—we are going 

to be able to get more and more focused as time goes on—on things 

like drug interdiction, because we are going to be dealing less and 

less with just this mass flow right now of illegal immigration coming into the country. 

So, I am not saying it is going to happen overnight, but I think, 

from our perspective, we are going to slow down this immigration 

flow—and it is going to make it easier for all of us to concentrate 

on issues like that. 

Senator DAINES. That is a pretty important consequence to dealing with immigration flow, in terms of the resources now to stop 

the drug trafficking, which, as we see, is just devastating our communities across Montana as well as across this country. I appreciate that insight. 

Mr. JUDD. Senator, may I jump in just really quickly on that? 

Senator DAINES. Yes, please, Mr. Judd. 

Mr. JUDD. One of the things that we have to do is, we have to 

be proactive in our intel. Our intel needs to be driving the operations and how we try to interdict the drugs before they get into 

the United States. We do not want Mr. Crane and his officers to 

have to even deal with the drugs on the interior. What we need to 

do is, we need to stop that flow at the border. And, that has to be 

done by stopping illegal immigration, because, when we tie our 

hands up—when Border Patrol agents’ hands are tied in dealing 

with people that are crossing the border and asking for asylum— 

we create the holes that allow these criminal cartels to bring the 

drugs across the border. So, we have to be proactive in our intel 

to address this issue. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you for that insight. 

I want to shift gears now and talk about sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities willfully violate Federal law. And, they allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. These cities forbid their 

local law enforcement from sharing information on illegal immigrants with ICE or complying with an immigration detainer. 

Mr. Crane, what challenges does this create for your job? 

Mr. CRANE. Oh, the challenges are many, but, I think, most importantly, it is so much easier and more effective for us to apprehend these individuals while they are in somebody else’s custody. 

They have been arrested by somebody else. They place the detainer, they get done with them and turn them over to us, and we 

are putting them into proceedings or making a removal happen. So, 

it is a ‘‘day and night’’ difference. 

Then what happens, though, with these hundreds and thousands 

of people that do not get turned over to us in sanctuary cities—instead our officers are out on the street chasing ghosts. These guys 

rarely leave much of a fingerprint. And, yes, we have people out 

there, like the U.S. Marshals Service, that are out looking for these 
38 

guys. But, it is so much more time-intensive. We may never catch 

them again, until they actually get arrested for something else. 

Senator DAINES. So, let me, if I could, ask one final question. Believe it or not, in my home State of Montana, there are some Montana cities—including my home town—looking at this—considering 

enacting sanctuary city policies. In fact, we have two Congressional 

candidates right now. We only have one that is for sanctuary cities. 

What advice do you have for those elected officials? 

Mr. CRANE. They need to open their eyes up and look around. 

And, I know we see something in the press, every once in a while, 

about—and one of the Members brought up this morning the incident in Maryland. That type of stuff is happening all over the country every day. And, like I said earlier in my testimony, everything 

that the Members here say has a consequence. And, these folks 

back in your home State, what they do has a consequence, too— 

and that consequence is that they are stopping law enforcement 

and they are putting bad guys back on the street, who are going 

to commit crimes and who are going to victimize and harm people 

in their communities. And, there are no ways around it. Please cooperate with law enforcement. Please follow the laws of our country. That would be my message. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

I just want to underscore the point. Mr. Crane, you said that it 

is easier for your agents to apprehend these individuals. Can I say 

that it is safer? 

Mr. CRANE. Oh, absolutely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is a whole lot safer. You are going to put 

your agents’ lives on the line less often, if you are doing it this 

way? 

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, yes, it is easier. I think it is more 

important to say that it is safer. 

Mr. CRANE. Absolutely correct, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCaskill would like to make a 

comment. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, I just wanted to—Mr. Judd, on the 

polygraph thing—I have tried to look at this. As you know, most 

law enforcement—FBI uses a polygraph. The use of the polygraph 

is very widespread in any law enforcement employment situation. 

What I learned is, the difference is that the FBI does it at the end. 

You all do it at the very beginning. So, a lot of the people who are 

weeded out during the process of a background investigation or 

other vetting of a potential agent or police officer—that has already 

occurred, before the polygraph. And, one of the reasons that was 

given as to why the polygraph was at the beginning is, you save 

all of those resources, if you weed out at the beginning, as opposed 

to going through all of that and doing the polygraph at the end. 

Does that have any validity, as far as you are concerned? 

Mr. JUDD. It really does not. But, simply put—and, again, I am 

not advocating not having a polygraph. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. JUDD. We have to have a polygraph. 
39 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. JUDD. We need it. In the past, we have hired criminals—I 

am sorry, we have hired convicted felons into the Border Patrol. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. JUDD. So, we do have to have a polygraph. But, where we 

do the polygraph—whether we do it on the front end or whether 

we do it on the back end—if it is not administered correctly, it does 

not matter. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. JUDD. We are just not going to get employees into the service. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, Mr. Crane, finally, the heartbreaking 

case of the murder in Missouri—that was a situation that was not 

a sanctuary city. ICE was contacted, and ICE did not get there. 

ICE ended up sending the paperwork to the wrong jail. I mean, it 

was a series of errors that was not for lack of willingness to cooperate by local law enforcement, but it was a problem with ICE being 

there when they were called. So, I hope you will continue to inform 

the Committee about how we can help with that issue, because 

that woman’s husband would still be alive if ICE had responded 

timely to the request from law enforcement in that case. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, ma’am. And, I currently do not have all of the 

finite details about that situation, but, if you do, I would be happy 

to take a look at it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That would be great. ICE was not at the 

hearing. I had hoped ICE would be at the hearing to talk about the 

problems with that case. But, they were not, and so, hopefully—we 

will be glad to share those details with you. And, maybe, you can 

shed some light on what went wrong and why ICE did not respond 

in a way that was timely. 

Mr. CRANE. I would love to do it. And, if need be, we will reach 

out and ask other questions and see what else we can find out. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, I think it would be great if you could 

help facilitate—I do not think anybody in ICE has ever told this 

woman that they are sorry. 

Mr. CRANE. I would love to. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK, great. Thank you, Mr. Crane. 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses. I think, from just the 

standpoint of providing us action items that I think can have a real 

impact and real effect, this is probably one of the best hearings we 

have held—certainly, as I have been Chairman in the last couple 

of years. And, it does not surprise me. I come from a manufacturing background. If I wanted to figure out what was happening 

on the shop floor, I went to the shop floor. I talked to the actual 

machine operators. And, because my managers knew I was going 

to do that, they also talked to the people on the shop floor. 

So, I want to set up a process. I am 100 percent serious about 

this. I know that we have gotten great input from you. You have 

just demonstrated it here during this hearing. We will work with 

this Committee up front—immediately—to lay out all of these 

crazy and insane policies, so you can do your job more effectively 

and, Mr. Crane, more safely. 
40 

So, again, I want to thank you for your service. I know that you 

are—all of you and all of the people that work with you in your 

unions—are risking their lives trying to enforce our laws. The least 

we can do is support you and not denigrate your service as well as 

make sure that whatever policies we enact help you do your jobs, 

increase your morale, and keep you safe. 

So, with that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days, 

until April 6th at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(41) 

A P P E N D I X 
42 

U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

"Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and 

Requirements" 

March 22, 2017 

Ranking Member Claire McCaskill 

Opening Statement 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for calling this hearing today to talk about this critical issue. 

I want to start by thanking Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border 

Protection-or "CBP"-officers, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement-or 

"ICE"-personnel. I know that your jobs are not easy and not always appreciated. 

In February, I went to see our southern border firsthand, and met some of the 

men and women tasked with our safety and security. I talked to these hardworking 

Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, ICE agents and Air and Marine personnel and I 

heard about the challenges that they face. Every day, these men and women have 

to secure a border that spans deserts, rivers and mountains, they have to process 

hundreds of thousands of people, cargo, and vehicles coming into our country, and 

they have to go toe to toe with cartels, who will stop at nothing to smuggle drugs 

and-for what is becoming even more obscenely profitable for them-people into 

this country. These men and women are understaffed, overworked, and seldom 
43 

receive the recognition they deserve. Ensuring that the men and women 

responsible for protecting our border and enforcing our immigration laws have the 

resources they need is an issue of national security. 

When I was at the southern border I asked these men and women what they 

needed to do their jobs better. Was it resources? Was it technology? Was it 

additional staff? And yes, I asked if we needed a wall. And you know what they 

said? They said that they needed better roads to access the border, they needed 

double fencing in some areas that experience high traffic, they needed more 

electricity to power their equipment in remote locations, and they needed more 

agents to help ease some of the overtime. But not one said we needed a 2,000 mile 

long border wall, and not one said that a wall by itself could secure the border. 

We need to think carefully about these men and women and what we can do 

to help them do their jobs and keep us safe. We should give them more resources, 

we should give them more roads, and yes we should give them more staff, but we 

shouldn't just go and build a wall without thinking about it first. These people 

know firsthand what we need, and they should be listened to. 

As everyone here knows, the President has signed executive orders calling 

for an additional 5,000 border patrol officers and an additional 10,000 ICE agents. 

And let me just say, that I am for giving these agencies the staff they need, but did 
44 

anyone stop and think before the President decided that an additional 15,000 agents 

alone was the answer? What about 14,000? Or 16,000? 

If the President's goal is to increase the number of apprehensions of people 

crossing the border illegally, simply increasing the number of Border Patrol Agents 

may not be the most effective strategy. In fact, since 2000, the number of Border 

Patrol agents has increased by 115%, while the number of apprehensions along the 

southern border by those Border Patrol agents has decreased by 75%. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am going to sound like a broken record on this 

point, but I would like to see the cost-benefit analysis. Did anyone take the time to 

calculate how many people we need to do the job right? Right now we have 

management problems in CBP and ICE where agents are stuck behind desks doing 

administrative tasks, and the manager to officer ratio needs review. Do we need an 

additional 15,000 agents, or do we need a shift in structure, or more support staff 

so that agents can be out there doing their jobs? These are the questions we need 

to answer. 

The other glaring problem with this rush to hire an additional 15,000 agents 

is that the administration has completely overlooked our ports of entry. Yes, that's 

right, according to these executive orders not one additional person will be added 

to the CBP officer ranks. CBP officers serve a critical role screening cargo and 
45 

visitors at more than 300 ports of entry. In 2015, CBP collected $46 billion from 

duties, taxes and fees at ports of entry across the country. That same year CBP 

officers arrested 8,246 individuals wanted for serious crimes and seized more than 

3.3 million pounds of narcotics at points of entry. Despite this their critical role in 

securing our border, and the fact that they are understaffed based on CBP's own 

models, the administration plans to do nothing to ease the burden on them. 

I'd like to ask the administration why it made that decision. I'd like to ask 

the administration how long it will take to hire its new officers and agents. I'd like 

to know how they plan to use them around the country ... but they are simply not 

here to answer our questions. 

Unfortunately, this is the second hearing in a row where, when given an 

invitation, the administration has failed to provide a witness. I invited the 

Department to send anyone-anyone!-to testify at today's hearing, and DHS has 

failed to provide a single representative. The lack of responsiveness by DHS to 

this Committee is incredibly troubling. I know the Department has already begun 

issuing acquisition requests to contractors for the President's proposed border wall, 

yet I am still waiting for information from the Department on the cost-benefit 

analysis they are supposedly conducting. I refuse to accept that stonewalling is the 

new normal. 
46 

During the past two months the Trump administration has proposed huge 

changes would impact our budget, our policies, and our national security, but they 

have shown an unwillingness to answer any questions about them. Our system of 

government works because there is oversight; because we have checks and 

balances. 

I want to make sure that the CBP and ICE officers and agents out there 

securing the border, manning our ports of entry, and enforcing our laws have the 

resources that they need and deserve. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today about those needs and how we can work to meet them. And after this 

hearing is done, I will continue to ask the administration questions, and believe me 

I plan to get answers. 
47 

National Border Patrol Council 

Testimony of Brandon Judd 

President of the National Border Patrol Council 

Before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee 

March 22,2017 

Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member McCaskill, thank you for allowing me to testify before 

this Committee today. My name is Brandon Judd and I am pleased to test if)" today from my 

personal experience as a veteran Border Patrol Agent and on behalf of all rank-and-file Border 

Patrol Agents whom, as the President of the National Border Patrol Council ("NBPC"), I was 

elected to represent. 

Personal History and Experience 

Although I currently serve as the NBPC President, I am first-and-foremost a Border Patrol Agent 

with 19 and a halfyears of experience. 

As a Border Patrol Agent, I've worked under three different administrations: Clinton, Bush and 

Obama. President Trump's Administration is now my fourth. I spent the majority of my career in 

the Tucson Border Patrol Sector, which is the busiest sector in the history of the Border Patrol. 

As an Agent in the field, I've served as a Canine Handler, Field Interdiction Team Leader, Field 

Training Officer and Intel Agent. 

Background 

As you know, the Administration proposed the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol Agents 

as well as making major investments in border infrastructure. This is welcome news and is a 

step in the right direction to securing the border. 

The Congressionally mandated floor for manpower at Border Patrol is 21,370 Agents. We are 

currently I ,743 Agents below this floor. To put this figure in perspective, I, 743 Agents is about 

the size of the St. Louis Police Department and slightly smaller than the Milwaukee Police 

Department. This lack of manpower is already impacting our operations and the smuggling 

cartels are exploiting the fact we do not have full coverage. 

According to CBP's own figures, in order to bring Border Patrol back up to the Congressionally 

mandated floor, add 5,000 new Agents and account for our historical 6 percent rate of attrition, 

the Border patrol will need to hire over 2, 700 Agents every year for the next 5 years. Last year 

we hired, trained and deployed 485 new Agents so you see the cause for my concern this 

morning. 

Although the news of hiring new agents and infrastructure is welcome, we have to take a realistic 

approach in understanding the hiring and retention challenges Border Patrol has faced over the 

last 20 years. 
48 

Challenges Going Forward 

It is one thing to mandate the hiring of Border Patrol Agents, it is another thing to actually do it. 

Not only is the Federal Government facing a huge problem with the hiring of new Agents, it is 

facing the larger problem of retaining those they have already hired. There are three main 

reasons the hiring and retaining of Border Patrol Agents is going to be difficult. 

1. Pay Parity 

2. Morale 

3. Improper administration of the polygraph examination 

Pay Parity 

Border Patrol Agents are the only Federal Law Enforcement Agency I am aware of that suffered 

a pay cut over the past several decades. We took this pay cut due to the widely publicized illegal 

use of Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime ("AUO") by management. In 2014, Agents 

had their AUO cut from 25 percent to 20 percent with further cuts that were coming because of 

its illegal use and because of sequestration. 

To address this issue and to try to keep as much pay as possible, this Committee passed the 

Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act (P.L. 113-277) two years ago. This legislation was 

authored by Senators Tester and McCain and I cannot thank them enough for all their hard work 

to get this legislation enacted. Well and truly we are eternally grateful for their efforts. 

However, through the legislative process, CBP and the Border Patrol refused to support the 

legislation unless Border Patrol Agents were exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA). Making Border Patrol Agents FLSA exempt cost your average Agent $5,000 yearly. 

ICE Agents on the other hand are not FLSA exempt and this lack of pay parity with a sister 

agency within DHS is going to be problem. Although Border Patrol is slated to hire an 

additional 5,000 agents, ICE is also gearing up to hire an additional 10,000 officers. In the last 

two years Border Patrol has lost 500 Agents to ICE. When ICE starts hiring in earnest, the 

Border Patrol will lose several thousand Border Patrol Agents overnight if we do not take 

corrective action. As Congress considers making additional investments in border security, I 

strongly urge you to consider restoring pay parity with ICE. 

Morale 

As previously stated, I've worked under the past three administrations and I've never seen the 

morale lower than it has been over the past four years. Please understand I do not mean that as a 

political statement, it is simply a fact. The men and women that I represent felt under resourced 

and underappreciated. 

Over the past 1 0 years, the Department of Homeland Security has consistently been ranked as 

one of the worst places to work in the Federal Government and the Border Patrol during this time 

has been at or near the bottom ofDHS. Two examples of the dysfunction are captured in two 

questions on the most recent Federal Employee View Point Survey, a survey mandated by 

Congress that all Federal Agencies must administer. When asked if Border Patrol Agents 

believed their agency was successful in completing its mission, only 39 percent of the 
49 

respondents answered in the affirmative. Government-wide this answer was 74 percent. When 

asked if Border Patrol Agents believed their organization's senior leadership maintain high 

standards of honesty and integrity, only 32 percent of Agents responded in the affirmative. The 

government wide average was 52 percent. 

Furthermore, the survey paints a harrowingly bleak picture of the Border Patrol as an agency. In 

almost every survey question, the Border Patrol was ranked lower than CBP, who was ranked 

lower than DHS, who was ranked lower than the rest of the Federal Government. The results of 

the survey are manifesting themselves in our current and historical attrition rate. 

A lot of the recent attrition issues are being placed on operations, and while partly true, it ignores 

the whole picture. If tackled alone, operations will only yield part of the solution as evidenced 

during both the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton Administrations. During this time operations 

were sound and for the most part Border Patrol Agents were allowed to do our jobs, but we still 

had an extremely high rate of attrition. 

This trend obviously must stop, but unless all aspects of the problem are addressed, history 

shows the trend will continue. 

Improper Administration of the Polygraph 

It is well documented that the Border Patrol has a polygraph problem. My understanding is that 

the latest numbers have us failing approximately 70 percent of the applicants. This failure rate is 

almost three times higher than other federal agencies and unfortunately CBP has been treating 

prospective job applicants as if they were criminal suspects. We have had police officers who 

have passed a polygraph for their agency, fail our polygraph. We have had military veterans 

with impeccable service fail our polygraph. We have even had former Border Patrol Agents who 

left for other law enforcement agencies fail our polygraph upon trying to return. 

Senator Flake of Arizona is currently trying to fix the issues through legislation and I want to 

thank him for taking an interest in this issue. However, I am left wondering why it takes 

legislation to fix a problem? Where is the accountability at CBP? I raise this because I want the 

Committee to know that this is not a new revelation. We, the NBPC, have been raising this issue 

with CBP for years. 

Closing 

Being a Border Patrol Agent is an incredibly difficult job. Operationally, we work in some of 

the most challenging environments imaginable. I have worked in 120 degree heat in Arizona and 

the dunes of California and 20 degrees below zero in Montana. 

The job is physically hard on your body given the terrain we operate in and a career of shift work 

takes a toll on your family. Sadly, of the 48 Agents who I graduated with from the academy, 

only 21 are still with the Border Patrol. 

All of that being said, I love being a Border Patrol Agent. The work I do is important and I feel 

lucky beyond words that I have been afforded the opportunity to contribute to its mission. 
50 

Although I am sometimes critical of my agency, it is because I believe that we can and must do 

better. 

I want to thank the Committee for having this important hearing and I am happy to answer any 

questions that you might have about border security, manpower, or concerns we have with the 

Administration's proposed wall. 
51 

NTEU 

The National 'Ireasury Employees Union 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY M. REARDON 

NATIONAL PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE DHS FRONTLINE: 

EVALUATING STAFFING RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

March 22,2017 

Chainnan Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, distinguished members of the 

Committee; thank you for the opportunity to deliver this testimony. As President of the National 

Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 

25,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers, Agriculture Specialists and trade 

enforcement personnel stationed at 328 land, sea and air ports of entry (POE) across the United 

States (U.S.) and 16 Preclearance stations currently in Ireland, the Caribbean, Canada and United 

Arab Emirates airports. 

In addition to CBP's trade and travel security, processing and facilitation mission, 

CBP employees at the ports of entry are the second largest source of revenue collection for 

the U.S. government. In 2016, CBP processed more than $2.2 trillion in imports and 

collected more than $44 billion in duties, taxes, and other fees. Thank you for this 

opportunity to address ongoing issues that affect CBP in fulfilling its critical mission-hiring 

and funding challenges that contribute to ports of entry being chronically understaffed. 

There is no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and travel efficiency and stopping illicit 

trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons and money than the lack of sufficient staff at the 

ports and the current CBP Officer shortage is staggering. There is an existing vacancy rate of 

nearly 1,400 funded CBP Officers at the ports and, according to CBP's analytic workload 

staffing model (WSM), an additional 2,100 CBP Officers need to be funded and hired in order to 

meet 2017 staffing needs-translating into a total CBP Officer staffing shortage of 3,500 

today. 

The economic cost of this shortage is also staggering. For every 33 additional CBP 

Officers hired, the U.S. can potentially gain over 1,000 private sector jobs. If Congress fully 

staffed the ports with the needed 3,500 additional CBP Officers, 106,000 private sector jobs 

could be created. Understaffed ports lead to long delays in travel and cargo lanes and also 

create a significant hardship for frontline employees. Both involuntary overtime and involuntary 

work assignments far from home disrupt CBP Officers' family life and destroy morale. Ongoing 
52 

CBP staffing shortages directly contribute to CBP's perennial low ranking in federal employee 

workforce satisfaction surveys. 

As you know, the President's January Executive Order calls for hiring 5,000 additional 

Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Agents, but does not ask for one additional CBP officer new hire, despite the fact that CBP 

officers at the ports of entry in 2016 interdicted over 274,000 undocumented immigrants 

and seized over 600,000 pounds of illegal drugs, and over $62 million in illicit currency, 

while processing over 390 million travelers and $2.2 trillion in imports through the ports. 

CBP employees at the ports of entry are not only the frontline for illegal trade and travel 

enforcement, but their role of facilitating legal trade and travel is a significant economic driver 

for private sector jobs and economic growth (see attachment 1.) According to CBP Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2013 data, for every 1,000 CBP officers hired the following estimated outcomes could be 

expected: 

• $2 billion increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

• $642 million in opportunity costs saved (the quantification of time that a traveler could be 

using for other purposes than waiting in line, such as working or enjoying leisure 

activities) 

• 33,148 annual jobs added 

If the full3,500 CBP Officers were funded and hired according to the same study, the impact 

could be as high as: 

• $7 billion increase in GDP 

• $2 billion in opportunity costs saved 

• 115,000 annual jobs added 

Noting the positive impact of hiring additional CBP officers, it is troubling that even 

though Congress actually appropriated funding to hire 2,000 additional CBP Officers in FY 

20 I 4, CBP has only realized a net gain of less than 600 Officers as of January 2017, due to 

attrition and the amount of time it takes to onboard new CBP Officers. 

CBP Officer Hiring Challenges 

NTEU continues to have significant concerns about the slow pace of hiring at CBP. 

CBP has struggled to fill the initial 2,000 positions Congress authorized in 2014. One factor that 

may be hindering hiring is that CBP is not utilizing available pay flexibilities, such as 

recruitment awards and special salary rates, to incentivize new and existing CBP Officers to seek 

vacant positions at these hard to fill ports, such as Nogales. 
53 

Another major impediment to fulfilling CBP's hiring goal is that CBP is the only federal 

agency with a congressional mandate that all front-line officer applicants receive a polygraph 

test. Two out of three applicants fail its polygraph-about 65 percent--more than double the 

average rate of eight law enforcement agencies according to data provided to the Associated 

Press. The eight law enforcement agencies that supplied information showed an average failure 

rate of28 percent. As an example, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration failed 36 percent 

of applicants in the past two years. 

NTEU commends Congress for including in the FY 2017 Defense authorization bill a 

provision that authorized the CBP Commissioner to waive polygraph examination requirements 

for certain veterans applying for CBP job openings. NTEU also commends the Chairman, and 

Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Flake (R-AZ), for introducing S. 595, a bill that expands the 

authority to waive polygraph examinations to expand exemptions for veterans and allow 

exemptions for existing state and local law enforcement officers who apply for these positions at 

CBP. 

NTEU does not seek to reduce the standards used by CBP in their hiring process, but 

believes that there is a problem with how the polygraph is currently administered. We ask for 

CBP to review its 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. 

Also, because ICE does not require polygraphs for job applicants, it is likely that CBP will not be 

competitive with ICE in attracting new hires. 

Improving the current polygraph program should help in expediting the CBP Officer 

hiring process so that the existing 1,400 vacancies can be filled and CBP can move forward with 

funding and hiring the 2,107 additional Officers as required by the WSM. NTEU also 

recommends that CBP allow immediate polygraph re-testing opportunities to those with a No 

Opinion or Inconclusive result, including those with a No Opinion Counter Measures finding. 

Lastly, the best recruiters are likely current CBP Officers. Unfortunately, morale 

continues to suffer because of staffing shortages. In addition to being overworked due to 

excessive overtime requirements, temporary duty assignments are a major drag on employees, 

especially those with families. Based on their experiences, many officers are reluctant to 

encourage their family members or friends to seek employment with CBP. I have suggested to 

CBP leadership that they look at why this is the case. 

CBP Officer Overtime 

Also due to this ongoing current staffing shortage of over 3,500 CBP Officers, CBP 

Officers nationwide are working excessive overtime to maintain basic port staffing. Currently, 

CBP Officer overtime pay is funded 100% through user fees and is statutorily capped at $35,000 

per year. All CBP Officers are aware that overtime assignments are an aspect of their jobs. 

However, long periods of overtime hours can severely disrupt an officer's family life, morale and 

ultimately their job performance protecting our nation. 
54 

Because of the ongoing staffing shortages, CBP Officers are required to regularly work 

overtime which results in individual Officers hitting the $35,000 overtime cap very early in the 

fiscal year. This leaves no overtime funding available for peak season travel, holidays and other 

times when CBP Officers are expected to work overtime resulting in critical staffing shortages in 

the third and fourth quarter of the fiscal year that usually coincide with peak travel at the ports. 

At many ports, CBP has granted overtime exemptions to over one half of the workforce 

to allow managers to assign overtime to Officers that have already reached the statutory overtime 

cap, but cap waivers only force CBP Officers already working long daily shifts to continue 

working these shifts for more days. Officers are required to come in hours before their regular 

shifts, to stay an indeterminate number of hours after their shifts (on the same day) and 

compelled to come in for more overtime hours on their regular days off as well. Both 

involuntary overtime--resulting in 12 to 16 hour shifts, day after day, for months on end--and 

involuntary work assignments far from home disrupt CBP Officers' family life and erode morale. 

There are some CBP Officers who want to work as much overtime as possible, but are 

thwarted from this goal because of the $35,000 cap on overtime. Last Congress, the House 

Homeland Appropriations Committee approved a raise of the overtime cap to $45,000, but the 

Senate did not include this provision in its FY 2017 appropriations bill. Neither bill made it to 

the floor in either the House or Senate. 

NTEU supports raising the annual overtime cap to $45,000 and asks Congress to add this 

provision to its FY 2018 appropriations legislation. 

Temporary Duty Assignments at Southwest Land Ports ofEntrv 

Due to CBP's ongoing hiring delays, CBP has been diverting CBP Officers from other 

air, sea and land ports to the severely short-staffed Southwest land ports, such as the San Ysidro 

land POE (see attachment 2.) Since 2015, CBP has diverted Officers from their assigned ports to 

San Ysidro and more recently to Nogales POEs for 90-day temporary duty assignments (TDYs.) 

In November 2016, CBP issued an updated TDY solicitation that directs 14 CBP Field Offices to 

provide 200 CBP Officers for TDY s to the San Diego and Tucson Field Office. For example, in 

this solicitation, CBP directed the Detroit Field Office to send 7 CBP Officers to the San Diego 

Field and 6 CBP Officers to the Tucson Field Office from January 9 through April 7, 2017. 

To encourage volunteers for these TDY s and avoid forced TDY s, NTEU suggests 

Congress ask CBP to supplement the TDY solicitation to include: 

• 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 the Tactical Terrorism Response Team 

and the Strategic Response Team, and by including all Officers who have 

graduated from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and who have 

received a sufficient amount of post-academy training; 
55 

• CBP should schedule TDY s in such a way that the supplemental staffing through 

TDY s remains constant, so there is not a gap between the departure of one round 

ofTDYs 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. 

Impact of Staffing Shortages 

As cited in a 2008 GAO report, "[CBP] officers and managers told us that not having 

sufficient staff contributes to morale problems, fatigue, lack of backup support and safety issues 

when officers inspect travelers--increasing the potential that terrorists, inadmissible travelers and 

illicit goods could enter the country." (See GA0-08-2 19, page 7.) 

"Due to staffing shortages, ports of entry rely on overtime to accomplish their inspection 

responsibilities. Double shifts can result in officer fatigue ... officer fatigue caused by excessive 

overtime negatively affected inspections at ports of entry. On occasion, officers said they are 

called upon to work 16-hour shifts, spending long stints in primary passenger processing lanes in 

order to keep lanes open, in part to minimize traveler wait times. Further evidence of fatigue 

came from officers who said that CBP officers call in sick due to exhaustion, in part to avoid 

mandatory overtime, which in turn exacerbates the staffing challenges faced by the ports." (See 

GA0-08-219, page 33.) 

These impacts, as reported to Congress by GAO, have changed little as CBP Officer 

staffing continues to lag far behind pedestrian, vehicle and commercial traffic volume at the 

ports. In fact, with 1,400 vacancies and 2,100 CBP Officer positions yet to be authorized and 

funded, the situation is even worse today. 

Staffing shortages have also reduced the number of CBP Officers available to conduct 

more in depth secondary inspections. In the past, there were three inspectors in secondary 

processing for every one inspector in primary processing. Now there is a one to one ratio. 

Without adequate personnel at secondary, wait times increase and searches are not done 

to specification. This is a significant cargo security issue. For example, a full search of one 

vehicle for counterfeit currency will take two officers on average a minimum of 45 minutes. 

Frequently, only one CBP Officer is available for this type of search and this type of search will 

then take well over an hour. 
56 

Ongoing staff shortages directly contribute to CBP's perennial ranking at the very 

bottom of the Partnership for Public Service's "Best Places to Work" Survey--291 out of 

305 agency subcomponents on the latest survey. 

Diversion of Customs User Fees 

In addition to appropriated funding, CBP collects customs user fees which include fees 

authorized by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) to 

recover certain costs incurred for processing, among other things, air and sea passengers, and 

various private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments. The source of 

these user fees are commercial vessels, commercial vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private 

vessels, air passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail, customs brokers 

and barge/bulk carriers. 

COBRA fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account and are designated by 

statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as I 00% of inspectional overtime for 

passenger and commercial vehicle inspection during overtime shift hours. Of the 23,775 CBP 

Officers currently funded, customs user fees fund 2,859 full-time equivalent CBP Officers. 

In addition to the ongoing staffing shortage of over I ,400 CBP Officer funded positions, 

CBP estimates that it would need an additiona12,107 CBP Officers, over and above the 2,000 

Officers funded in FY 2014, through FY 2017 to meet optimal staffing. In the Administration's 

past budget submission, CBP proposed to pay for these additional Officers with a $2 increase in 

both the immigration and customs user fees. NTEU reiterates that any increases to the Customs 

User Fee Account should be properly used for much-needed CBP staffing and not diverted to 

unrelated projects and should not result in any reduction in CBP appropriated funding. 

The highway bill enacted into law in 2015, indexed customs user fees to inflation, but 

diverted this increase in fees to pay for infrastructure projects and not to CBP Officer pay and 

staffing, as intended. Indexing customs user fees to inflation raises $1.4 billion over ten yearscreating a $140 million per year funding stream that could have helped pay for the hiring of 

additional CBP Officers to perform CBP's national security, law enforcement and trade and 

travel facilitation missions. 

By diverting this fee, while $140 million a year in additional customs user fees are still 

being collected, CBP is not receiving one additional dime to fund much needed new CBP Officer 

personnel needed to provide inspection and enforcement services to the users of these services. 

On February 1, 2017, Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) introduced a bill that diverts the first 

$21.4 million of annual customs user fees collected to the Highway Trust Fund beginning in 

2020. NTEU strongly opposes any attempts by Congress to raid customs user fees to pay for 

infrastructure projects. 

If Congress is serious about border security, wait times, international trade, travel 

enforcement, and job creation, Congress must reject any further attempts to divert custom 

user fees to fund other programs and restore the use of the fees collected from indexing to 

inflation to their original purpose. 
57 

Agriculture Specialist Staffing 

CBP employees also perform critically important agriculture inspections to prevent the 

entry of animal and plant pests or diseases at ports of entry. For years, NTEU has championed 

the CBP Agriculture Specialists' Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) mission within the 

agency and has fought for increased staffing to fulfill that mission. The U.S. agriculture sector is 

a crucial component of the American economy generating over $1 trillion in annual economic 

activity. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, foreign pests and diseases cost the 

American economy tens of billions of dollars annually. 

NTEU believes that staffing shortages and Jack of mission priority for the critical work 

performed by CBP Agriculture Specialists, CBP agriculture detector dog teams and CBP 

Technicians assigned to the ports is a continuing threat to the U.S. economy. 

NTEU worked with Congress to include in the recent CBP Trade Facilitation and 

Enforcement Act (P.L. 114-125) a provision that requires CBP to submit, by the end of 

February 2017, a plan to create an agricultural specialist career track that includes a 

"description of education, training, experience, and assignments necessary for career 

progression as an agricultural specialist; recruitment and retention goals for agricultural 

specialists, including a timeline for fulfilling staffing deficits identified in agricultural 

resource allocation models; and, an assessment of equipment and other resources needed to 

support agricultural specialists." 

CBP's FY 16 Agriculture Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM), shows a need for an 

additional 631 frontline CBP Agriculture Specialists and supervisors to address current 

workloads through FY 2017; however, even with the 2016 increase in AQI user fees, CBP only 

will fund a total of2,414 CBP Agriculture Specialist positions in FY 2017, not the 3,045 

called for by the AgRAM. 

Because ofCBP's key mission to protect the nation's agriculture from pests and disease, 

NTEU urges the Committee to exempt CBP Agriculture Specialist positions from the hiring 

freeze and authorize the hiring of these 631 CBP Agriculture Specialists to address this critical 

staffing shortage that threatens the U.S. agriculture sector. 

CBP Canine Program 

The CBP Canine Program is also critical to CBP's mission. The primary goal of the CBP 

Canine Program is terrorist detection and apprehension. The working CBP canine team is one of 

the best tools available to detect and apprehend persons attempting entry to organize, incite, and 

carry out acts of terrorism. The Canine Program's secondary goal is detection and seizure of 

controlled substances and other contraband, often used to finance terrorist and/or criminal drug 

trafficking organizations. 

Currently, there are 1,500 authorized canine teams but, as with all CBP resources, there is 

a shortage of canine teams at the ports of entry. At one high-volume southwest border port, 

NTEU was told that they only have 24 of the 38 authorized canine teams. By CBP's own 
58 

allocation, this port is short 14 dogs and handlers. NTEU supports Congress fully funding and 

staffing the CBP canine detection program. 

Reimbursable Service Agreements 

In recent years, in order to find alternative sources of funding to address serious CBP 

Officer and Agriculture Specialist staffing shortages, CBP received authorization and has entered 

into Reimbursable Service Agreements (RSAs) with the private sector as well as with state and 

local governmental entities. These stakeholders reimburse CBP for additional inspection 

services including overtime pay and the hiring of new CBP Officer and Agriculture Specialist 

personnel that in the past have been paid for entirely by user fees or appropriated funding. 

According to CBP, since the program began in 2013, CBP has entered into agreements with 36 

stakeholders, providing more than 106,000 additional processing hours for incoming commercial 

and cargo traffic. 

The Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act signed into law on December 16, 2016, 

amended the Homeland Security Act of2002 to expand CBP's RSA program by making CBP's 

ability to enter into RSAs permanent; removing the annual limit on the number of agreements at 

air ports of entry; and allowing small air ports of entry with fewer than 100,000 international 

passenger arrivals annually to offset CBP for the salaries and expenses of up to five full-time 

officers. 

NTEU's RSA Concerns 

NTEU believes that the RSA program would be entirely unnecessary if Congress, 

when it authorized CBP user fees collected to be indexed to inflation, bad provided that the 

$140 million a year funding stream be used to increase CBP overtime, staffing and other 

resources, as set forth in existing statute. NTEU also believes that the RSA program is a band 

aid approach and cannot replace the need for Congress to either appropriate new funding or 

authorize an increase in customs and immigration user fees to adequately address CBP staffing 

needs at the ports. 

Further, NTEU strongly believes that CBP should not enter into a RSA if it would 

negatively impact or alter services funded under any Appropriations Acts, or services provided 

from any Treasury account derived by the collection of fees. RSAs simply cannot replace CBP 

appropriated or user fee funding--making CBP a "pay to play" agency. NTEU remains 

concerned with CBP's new Preclearance expansion program that also relies heavily on 

"pay to play". 

NTEU also believes that the use ofRSAs to fund CBP staffing shortages raises 

significant equity and other issues, which calls for an engaged Congress conducting active 

oversight. 
59 

For example: 

• How does CBP ensure that RSAs are not only available to ports of entry with 

wealthy private sector partners? (When RSAs were first considered, there was a 

proposal to require 30% of the total RSA funds collected be reserved for ports 

with greatest need, not just those that have partners with the greatest ability to 

pay.) 

• How does CBP ensure that RSA funds pay for the hiring of new CBP Officer and 

Agriculture Specialist personnel and are not simply used to pay for relocating 

existing CBP personnel from other ports (robbing from Port A to staff Port B 

without hiring additional staff)? 

• How does CBP ensure a long-term public-private funding stream? (When RSAs 

were first considered, there was a proposal to have RSA pay up front for ten years 

over 3 installments.) 

Ratio of Supervisors to Frontline Personnel 

Another concern is that CBP continues to be a top-heavy management organization. 

In terms of real numbers, since its creation, the number of new managers has increased at a much 

higher rate than the number of new frontline CBP hires. CBP' s own FY 15 end of year 

workforce profile (dated 10/3115), shows that the Supervisor to frontline employee ratio was 

1 to 5.6 for the total CBP workforce, 1 to 5. 7 for CBP Officers and 1 to 6.6 for CBP 

Agriculture Specialists. Prior to 2003, supervisor to frontline ratio was closer to 1 supervisor 

to 12. It is also NTEU's understanding that nearly 1,000 CBP Officers are serving either at CBP 

headquarters or non-Office of Field Operations locations. This means that nearly 4,000 CBP 

Officers are serving in supervisory positions. 

The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at the expense of 

national security preparedness and frontline positions. Also, these highly paid management 

positions are straining the CBP budget. CBP's top heavy management structure contributes to 

the lack of adequate staffing at the ports, excessive overtime schedules and flagging morale 

among the rank and file. 

FY 2017 Supplemental Appropriations and FY 2018 Budget Requests 

The Administration released its FY 2018 budget submission to Congress that 

recommends $44.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for DHS. This is an increase of$2.8 

billion or 6.8 percent over the 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level. 

The bill requests $314 million to recruit, hire and train 500 new Border Patrol Agents and 

1,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents and support personnel. There is no 

mention of new funding to hire additional CBP Officers at the ports of entry. 

In addition to the FY 2018 budget request, the Administration submitted a $30 billion 

supplemental appropriations request for the remainder ofFY 2017. This appropriations request 
60 

would provide an additional $3 billion for DHS implementation of the President's January 25, 

2017 "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements" Executive Order. Of this 

$3 billion increase, $1.4 billion will be used to fund planning, design and construction of a 

physical wall along the southern border, $1.2 billion to increase immigration detention and 

removal facilities, and $286 million for CBP's border surge operations. The remainder of the $3 

billion supplemental appropriations request will be used to fund other programs related to 

meeting the goals of the President's January 25th Executive Order. 

NTEU is asking Congress to also prioritize and fund CBP staffing at the nation's 

air, sea and land ports by appropriating additional funding in the final months ofFY 2017 

and in the FY 2018 DHS appropriations bill to fully meet CBP staffing, resource and new 

mission needs at the 328 U.S. ports of entry. 

Recommendations 

To address the dire staffing situation at the Southwest land ports, 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 ofCBP Officers, CBP Agriculture Specialists and other CBP 

employees as stipulated in CBP's WSM. 

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 the recently enacted NTEU-supported legislation that allows recent military 

personnel to be hired as CBP Officers without undergoing a polygraph will result in an increase 

in new hires. 

In order to achieve the long-term goal of securing the proper staffing at CBP to address 

workloads, NTEU recommends that Congress take the following actions: 

• Fix the broken and segmented hiring process; 

• Address the reason for excessive (60%) applicant polygraph failures; 

• Fill I ,400 CBP Officer current vacancies; 

• Fund the additional 2, 100 CBP Officer needed new hires; 

• Fund 631 CBP Agriculture Specialists needed new hires; 

• Restore recruitment and retention awards, and other incentives; 

• Raise the yearly CBP Officer overtime cap from $35,000 to $45,000; and 

• Restore cuts in mission support personnel that will free CBP Officers from performing 

administrative duties such as payroll processing, data entry and human resources to 

increase the numbers available for trade and travel security and facilitation. 

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 and oppose any legislation to divert additional fees collected to other uses 

or projects. 
61 

The employees I represent are frustrated and their morale is indeed low. These employee 

work hard and care deeply about their jobs. 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 frontline CBP Officers and 

Agriculture Specialists at our nation's ports of entry need relief. These men and women are 

deserving of more staffing and resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently. 

Thank you for the opportunity to deliver this testimony to the Committee on their behalf. 
62 

Attachment I 

TableS 

Nritl!t<lt!Wit:t~;ttll'HMd'<:~NUforfii~'(W"oflhe<'!~/tt-f(lf~~llff,rtltstti!m.!l>tllttfti<MtMcOI'nllltWIIImtt~lfllltt»~nUPWn 

IM<!~nl-~ 

SO\I«n:Ci~~Umllh.tli'w:.:!~/Wu<l/foWY~PI<m,ittu>tltp.t~-~JTHil'<IP'f!-1~1'<!<1l!O>Il~~fltodjs~t 

Sv-!kth!ne2~11.:GtiWMII>!IIC.nlloVl:r~11t:m~mlk~uen~tnn~~~!ld/l(lrto:~!.1i!Xlo;l:wubllrQ:tl!m> 

*"'"tl4rii,"C(mlffffl>~,VOJ.5'9,ffo.1,MWOO,SS5;J.IoNOAQ,f~IM$!0f'lf«(Wqf(r~rnfJi>lfllt$1111Cifoi>._Co/jftlr<>k!fll}(/hr 

~~f~UWt:1007~,A<.'«n1UI"t.tw/f:~£~1t~Jti)I~~OtloJ~,~-0tMJ111l~lltM 

C~ M111tt 1008:; I<OIIIHUI, in'lpM'liiVIIVV•MU\311£t(lfl(lmlt Dmylll:lty,H£ll\lmplo!UI¥1111yA.wld'IU:mofGc!mMier!«lllli 

CII!JOOI~~PMme!ll.nfi~~~U.~l9,~ 

Source: Resource Optimization at Ports of Entry, CBP, April!O, 2013 

22 
63 

San Ysidro Port of Entry 

By the summer of2019, the San Ysidro port 

of entry expects completion of an expansion 

project that will increase its northbound 

vehicle lanes from 26 to 32 and primary 

inspection booths from 50 to 62. The 

proposed FY 2018 budget recommends no 

new CBP Officer hires. 

www.nteu.org 

" 50,000 northbound vehicles processed each day 

" 25,000 northbound pedestrians cross each day 

., '!he port has over 350 CBP Officer vacancies 

" The port has a maximum of 26 vehicle lanes with 50 

primary inspection booths and 20 pedestrian lanes 

• The port lacks staff to keep all SO booths open daily 

causing backups 

" '!he economic cost in lost commerce due to staffing 

shortages is in excess of $7.2 billion and 62,000 jobs 

NTEU 
64 

Statement by Chris Crane, President, 

National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118 

ofthe 

American Federation of Government Employees 

Before the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs 

March 22,2017 
65 

Good morning, 

President Trump and DHS Secretary John Kelly have been unapologetic in their 

commitment to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. We believe that recent statistics released 

by CBP showing a sharp decline in illegal entries is a direct result of their leadership, and that in 

the long term illegal entries will continue to decline if strong interior enforcement and proper 

international messaging on U.S. immigration policy continues. 

For the last eight years, our organization has communicated clearly to the American 

public and members of Congress regarding what we believe is needed to stop illegal immigration 

into the United States. While many have tried to make the strategy for stopping illegal 

immigration a complicated matter, it is not. Border security must continue, but in addition to that 

the United States must enforce its laws on the interior of the country, and as a nation send a very 

clear message to the rest of the world that illegal entry into the United States and overstay will 

not be condoned or permitted. The United States must stop dangling a carrot and drawing people 

into this country, encouraging them to violate U.S. laws. Interior enforcement is the key to 

effective border security, which up to this point has been ignored. 

During my career at ICE I have never had the opportunity to commend a sitting U.S. 

President, or DHS Secretary, but I'm doing so today. Amidst all of the hammering from the 

media, and protests from special interest groups, President Trump and Secretary Kelly haven't 

waivered, but instead continued steadfast in their support of the rule oflaw and our officers in 

the field. If they continue on that course, countless lives will be saved and the victimization now 

seen so often, as the result of illegal immigration, will dramatically decline. Law enforcement 

saves lives. If Congress will support ICE officers and allow them to perform their mission, 

they'll prove it to you. 
66 

We need more officers and staff in ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO)-

the group within ICE carrying out the majority ofiCE's immigration mission. Currently ERO 

has around 5,000 officers to police approximately 11 million illegal aliens, as well as millions of 

other lawfully admitted foreign nationals, in 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. We are set up for failure. Compare ICE ERO's 5,000 officers to the 

approximately 35,000 officers on the New York City Police Department alone. 

We enthusiastically support the additional officers identified in President Trump's 

executive order on interior enforcement. However, we have very little faith in the ability ofiCE 

leadership to most effectively implement these additional officers and support staff. From our 

perspective, ICE should be making every effort to provide U.S. taxpayers the biggest bang for 

the buck. As staffing increases are considered and planned, ICE leadership should be thinking 

outside the box and innovating- looking at new ways, for example, to have our officers do less 

paperwork and data entry, and more law enforcement. ICE needs to adjust duties and change 

position descriptions for certain support staff, allowing for the expansion of the law enforcement 

duties our officers currently perform in the field. These types of changes could dramatically 

affect staffing models and costs submitted to Congress. However, from what we've seen thus far, 

proposed staffing increases at ICE have simply become a numbers drill at ICE. No changes, no 

innovation, and no improvements, just basically double our staffing numbers and call it a day. 

The only positive takeaway for us at this point is that the agency and union appear in agreement 

conceptually on the need to not only maintain our current hiring and academy standards, but 

increase standards in some areas prior to the beginning of any significant hiring. 

While there is no question that morale within ICE is at its highest in many years, the 

President's emphasis on enforcing the nation's laws will not completely solve the overall 
67 

employee morale crisis within the agency. As with DHS in general, and other component 

agencies within DHS, such as TSA, the Secret Service and Border Patrol, ICE is suffering from a 

toxic and failed management culture; an absence of leadership. In 2014 ICE was dead last in 

morale among 314 federal agencies surveyed; in 2015 ICE was second from last, and last year 

sixth from last. As a point of comparison, while many DHS agencies like ICE hover at the 

bottom of government wide morale, around the 300 range in surveys, last year the U.S. Marshals 

Service was ranked 80'h, and the DEA and FBI tied for 90'h place. Congress, the American 

public, incoming DHS leadership, and indeed the White House, should all be alarmed by the 

state of morale within DHS and its law enforcement agencies that are all so critical to America's 

public safety and national security. 

"Screw up and move up" is the general term used by many ICE employees to describe 

their supervision from their first-line supervisors all the way up to the Director ofiCE. "Screw 

up and move up" obviously denoting that our worst employees are the ones promoted to 

supervisory and leadership positions. Most employees refuse to report misconduct committed by 

supervisors because employees have zero trust in DHS and ICE internal affairs offices to 

effectively carry out investigations against ICE supervisors. Likewise, most employees have zero 

faith in the integrity ofiCE leadership to issue appropriate discipline to subordinate managers 

who have committed misconduct. At ICE it's a "good ol' boy network" in which supervisors 

cover for supervisors, and only rank and file employees are held accountable. Subordinate 

supervisors are not managed by their superiors; supervisors are permitted to harass, discriminate 

and retaliate at will. The workplace in many areas within ICE is toxic. Established in 2003, ICE 

has practically no policies. The agency generally depends on INS policies from 20 years ago or 
68 

more, or no policy at all. Law enforcement officers within ICE generally do not believe they 

have the full support ofiCE leadership to carry out the agency mission. 

During the last eight years, ICE employees and officers have been publicly demoralized 

by their own government. Many lawmakers, pundits for political parties, and the previous 

Administration, have consistently made disparaging remarks about ICE employees, their 

mission, and the laws they are sworn to uphold. In fact, these actions continue as ICE officers 

and their arrest activities are incorrectly portrayed and referenced publicly in the media by 

political pundits as "gestapo" tactics and other Nazi references and false and hateful accusations. 

It's pretty hard every day to maintain morale when your own government and the media turn on 

you for enforcing the laws enacted by Congress. Perhaps more importantly, this rhetoric places 

the safety and lives of our officers at risk. When our nation's lawmakers and government show 

no respect for the rule oflaw and the officers who enforce it, criminals feel empowered to 

become resistant and aggressive, and likewise lose respect for law enforcement officers. As 

Secretary Kelly spent 40 years of his life leading within an organization with one of the world's 

greatest leadership traditions, we are hopeful that he will work hand in hand with us in making 

dramatic changes to the leadership and management cultures within ICE. We hope that he will 

have the full support of the President in doing so. We need our piece of the swamp drained. 

At the Congressional level, our officers and employees desperately need your support. 

We need your support in terms of additional officers, staff and equipment, but we also need you 

to support the rule of law and the officers who enforce it. Everything you say and do has 

consequences. Talk of amnesty will create another run on the border. Disparaging comments 

about our officers will put their safety at risk. If you don't show respect for the laws enacted by 

Congress, neither will our state level leaders, citizens, or those from other countries. We can 
69 

significantly stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States, and with it much of the 

needless death and victimization that accompanies it, if we have the support of our government 

in enforcing our nation's laws. 

Thank you and that concludes my testimony. 
FY 2000-2016 

IIISII!&utllll.'flll9 

HSGAC 

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 

F[S(',\L YK\RS 
71 

F[3 17 2017 

13110 Pennsyl .. ania Avenue NW 

Wa.shing:lon. DC :!02~9 

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Kevin K. McAleenan 1._~ Acting Commissione/ f ' . -

Request for Approval: Executive Order Hiring Surge Plan 

Upon the release of the Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration 

Enforcement Improvements, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted a 

thorough analysis of the authorities, resources, and changes needed to meet the staffing 

provisions directed within the order. The purpose of this plan is to clearly articulate 

where CBP is today, what our hiring projections are, and how additional funds and 

authorities can be directed effectively toward achieving the Executive Order hiring 

mandate. 

In addition, during Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) conducted a 

comprehensive analysis of staffing allocations, capabilities, capability gaps, and 

requirements. The analysis, which considered direct and indirect hours as well as Jaw 

enforcement program management and law enforcement duties, showed an additional 

5,000 Border Patrol Agents (BPA) to be an appropriate increase based on current 

operations. CBP is working to enhance and update its analytical staffing model, the 

Personnel Requirements Determination, to account for the Border Patrol Agent Pay 

Reform Act of20 14 (BP APRA), as amended 1

, and potential increased use of contractors. 

Accordingly, an adjustment of the total Border Patrol Agent requirement in future budget 

years is likely. 

As of January 2017, CBP's workforce included 19,627 BPAs. Given the new staffing 

target of26,370 agents, this represents a gap of6,743. However, in order to close this 

gap, CBP must also account for attrition. With a projected annualized attrition rate of 6 

percent (approximately 1,380 losses per year), CBP must hire about 2,729 BPAs per year 

to achieve full BP A staffing in 5 years. 

From FY 2013 to FY 2016, CBP achieved a gross average of 523 annual BPA hires, 

while also experiencing an average of904 losses per year. Despite aggressive 

11 Pub. L. No. 114-13 
72 

Request for Approval: Executive Order Hiring Surge Plan 

Page2 

recruitment efforts and hiring process improvements, CBP hired a total of 485 BP As, 

approximately 40 new hires per month, in calendar year 2016. 

CBP must compete with Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations for 

applicants, as well as with our partner agencies in the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), Since FY 2014, 490 BPAs have departed CBP for U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), with a quarter of those leaving within the first quarter ofFY 

2017 (101 BPAs). ICE's concurrent requirement to hire 10,000 law enforcement 

personnel will greatly hinder CBP's efforts to hire, since ICE holds the recruitment 

advantage in several key areas, including: 

• Lack of Polygraph Mandate: Unlike CBP, ICE: does not require a polygraph 

examination, which has been identified as both a significant deterrent and point of 

failure for CBP law enforcement applicants. 

• Desirable Duty Locations: CBP's mission requires BPAs to be assigned to 

geographically remote or hard-to-fill locations, which are often a great distance from 

amenities and services such.as medical care, childcare, schools, and employment 

options for spouses. ICE is hiring in major metropolitan areas. 

• Higher Compensation: As of January 2016, all BPAs are covered Wlder BPAPRA. 

ICE Deportation Officers are covered under Administratively Uncontrollable 

Overtime (AUO). While both BP APRA and AUO offer up to a 25 percent 

supplement to an agent's salary, individuals under AUO are also covered by the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, and can earn more annually as a result. 

CBP also needs to be able to reduce attrition and increase the overall number of 

applicants, which, in light of ICE's simultaneous hiring efforts, would require significant 

enhancements to recruitment and retention efforts. The equation to reach full BPA 

staffing also calls for a 25 percent increase in BPA applicants (from the current annual 

average of60,000 to 75,000) and a 10 percent decrease in attrition (from 5.5 percent to 5 

percent). At a minimum, pay parity with ICE will be essential, as will enhanced mobility 

for CBP personnel. 

CBP therefore requires additional resources to implement policies that will increase the 

number of applicants who apply to BP A positions, while decreasing the attrition of our 

current workforce. CBP has identified the authorities and funding gaps below for your 

consideration. In order for these funding and authorities to make the most significant 

impact, CBP would need to receive them within the next six months. 
73 

Request for Approval: Executive Order Hiring Surge Plan 

Page3 

AUTHORITIES 

CBP requests the authorities from the below entities in order to meet the provisions of the 

President's Executive Order. By obtaining these authorities, CBP will be able to swiftly 

execute any agreed-upon process improvements, which could expedite the Agency's 

ability to achieve the staffing targets and assist in recruiting and retaining qualified 

personnel. Therefore, CBP requests the delegation of the following authorities: 

OPM 

• Direct hire authority; 

• Authority to regulate CBP polygmph program {currently regulated under E.O. 

137654); 

• Authority to set pay; 

• Authority to establish and approve qualification standards; 

• Authority to establish and approve classification standards; 

• Authority to determine the type and level of background investigation needed for CBP 

positions, to include what alternative requirements are acceptable in lieu of the 

background investigation requirements; this would also include the ability to identify 

who can conduct the investigation and the authority to determine who would conduct 

a background investigation; 

• Authority to set special salary rates; and 

• Return to a two-year probationary period. 

DoD 

• Support is needed from the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide Joint Personnel 

Adjudication System (JPAS) access to CBP for the purposes of streamlining the 

polygraph and suitability reciprocity processes within the federal government; 

• Insert CBP recruiters at military recruitment offices for veterans and transitioning 

soldiers; and • Based on the authorities that Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will delegate to 

CBP, as stated above, require DoD to work with CBP on a guaranteed placement 

program for frontline occupations for qualified veteran and transitioning soldiers. 

FBI 

• CBP requests that the FBI delegates to CBP the ability to conduct National Agency 

Checks, or permissible alternative, to streamline the suitability process. 

DHS 

• CBP is requesting delegated authority to establish social media accounts specifically 

for hiring and recruiting, and 
74 

Request for Approval: Executive Order Hiring Surge Plan 

Page4 

• As a matter of policy, CBP is requesting that the Chief Security Officer requires all 

departments to share polygraph results for the purposes of facilitating the onboarding 

of personnel between component agencies. 

POLYGRAPH EMMINATION REOUIREMENT 

STATUTORY CHANGES 

Recently, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which 

provided authority for CBP to waive the polygraph for any veteran who has a 

current/active Top Secret (TS) clearance and is able to access sensitive compartmented 

information (SCI), a current Single Scope Background Investigation, and was not granted 

any previous waivers to obtain the clearance. CBP will pursue Congressional or 

Executive Order avenues to expand the waiver authority for some or all of the following 

categories of applicants, applicable to those with at least two years in service: 

• State and Local Law Enforcement Officers (in good standing) who have successfully 

completed a polygraph administered by state/local authorities; 

• Federal Law Enforcement Officers (in good standing, has a current/in-scope Tier 4 or 

Tier 5 background investigation); and 

• Transitioning Members of the military, veterans, or members of the Reserves/National 

Guard (veteran or nonveteran), who meet specific criteria (has a current or previously 

held a Secret, TS, TS/SCI or is eligible to hold a TS/SCI clearance, has a current/inscope Tier 4 or Tier 5 background investigation, received or is eligible to receive a 

honorable military discharge, and was not granted any other waivers to obtain 

clearance). 

PILOT 

CBP is looking to pilot an alternative polygraph examination for a six-month period. The 

National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) has offered an option to utilize a 

counterintelligence format with additional questions related to corruption, the Test for 

Espionage, Sabotage, and Corruption (TES-C). The TES-C would provide added 

capacity for our onboard examiners as it is shorter in duration and would require no 

immediate resources. Should an applicant test inconclusive to the corruption-related 

questions on the TES-C format, the examiner could conduct the standard LEPET 

suitability test that we use currently. All applicants would remain subject to a Tier 5 

(formerly SSBI) investigation. 

Further research and analyses are being conducted by CBP to determine whether any 

additional requests for funding and authorities are required to hire the additional 5,000 

BPAs and accounting for high attrition levels. CBP remains fully committed to staffing 

the frontline in accordance with the expanding complexity and demands of its mission 

and maintaining its high standards. 
75 

Request for Approval: Executive Order Hiring Surge Plan 

PageS 

FuNDING 

CBP has determined that the costs of executing this hiring plan and recruiting, hiring, 

supporting and retaining the agents necessary to implement the Executive Order is $328 

million in Fiscal Year 2017 and $1.884 billion in Fiscal Year 2018. The required funding 

not only includes hiring costs, but also accounts for requirements related to agent salaries 

and benefits, facilities, training, IT, and associated air support. Detailed costs are shown 

in an attachment to this memo. The duty locations of the agents are. also attached. 

CONCLusiON 

Although external factors make it difficult to precisely predict the impact these changes 

will have on the BPA rate ofhire, CBP optimistically projects an increase from a baseline 

of485 BPAhires armually (-40 per month) to 917 BPA hires annually (-76 per month). 

This assumes an increase in the yield rates for the BP A entrance exam phase, the 

polygraph phase, and fitness test. 

CBP will continue to examine its frontline hiring process and related staffmg challenges 

to ensure the Agency is positioned to meet staffmg requirements. Although we do not 

expect to see the impact of the aforementioned process improvements this fiscal year, 

CBP anticipates that with the requested funding and authorities we will be able to make 

significant strides toward achieving our hiring goals. 
76 
77 

'I 

March 21, 2017 

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

Chairman 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

340 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC, 20510 

The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

340 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC, 20510 

Re: AAPA Comments re Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing 

Resources and Requirements 

Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member McCaskill, 

The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) is the unified and collective voice of the 

seaport industry in the Americas. AAPA empowers port authorities, maritime industry partners 

and service providers to serve their global customers and create economic and social value for 

their communities. Our activities, resources and partnerships connect, inform and unify seaport 

leaders and maritime professionals in all segments of the industry around the western 

hemisphere. These comments are on behalf of our U.S. members. 

Today, international trade through seaports accounts for more than a quarter of the U.S. 

economy-and is projected to reach 60 percent by 2030. At the center of trade and 

transportation are America's seaports, which handle approximately $6 billion worth of import 

and export goods daily, generate more than 23 million jobs, and provide more than $320 billion 

in tax revenues. A key component, and often overlooked resource, to our national freight 

network is the Custom and Border Protection (CBP) staff that work with our maritime partners. 

In order for America's international gateways to function more efficiently, effectively and safely, 

CBP must be adequately funded and staffed. In FY 2015, when CBP was funded to hire 2000 

additional staff, fewer than 20 agents were assigned to seaports. This inequity of CBP resources 

cannot continue. Our nation's ports are in partnership with CBP in securing our supply chain and 

providing vital support in moving freight safely through our ports and out onto the national 

freight network. Currently, CBP estimates it is short 500 staff in the maritime environment. 

Each year, roughly $1.4 billion tons of foreign trade cargo, including more than 11 million 

maritime containers, arrive at our seaports. Additionally, over 11 million international passengers 
78 

AAPA Comments re DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements 2 

begin their cruises at U.S. seaports. CBP is on the front line when cargo and passengers enter 

our country. CBP officers meet the ships at all ports of entry to check the manifests, screen 

incoming cargo, operate non-intrusive inspection (Nil) equipment (including radiation portal 

monitors), provide specialists to examine imported fruits, vegetables and flowers for potentially 

harmful diseases, and other missions at our busy gateways. CBP is also responsible for screening 

all foreign visitors and returning American citizens and passenger ships that enter U.S. seaports. 

Oddly, money is an issue even though revenues from inspection activity continue to grow. In the 

past year alone, we have seen the indexing of customs fees by Congress and the diversion of the 

revenue from CBP to fund the Highway Trust Fund in the FAST Act. Over a half billion dollars in 

user fees was imposed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with no 

guarantee that adequate inspection staffing will be available to administer these services when 

they are needed. Additionally, CBP is asking more and more of the industry to pay for traditional 

services through its reimbursable services program. This is not a sustainable program as CBP 

officers can only work so much overtime. Calls for deployment of more CBP resources to land 

borders are frequently heard. We urge the Committee to also hear the call for more CBP 

resources for U.S. ports. 

As Congress looks to expend resources for CBP officers, we ask that Congress and the 

Administration remember that seaports are international borders and must utilize and share the 

same CBP resources. As we move forward, we recommend that more CBP resources for 

maritime operations be made available that are in proportion to and meet the needs of our 

national economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments to the record. 

Sincerely, 

fwf);Jy-· 

Kurt J. Nagle 

President and CEO 
79 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Department of Homeland Security 

BEFORE 

U.S. Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Government Affairs 

ON 

·'Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: 

Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements" 

March 22,2017 

Washington, DC 
80 

CBP Statementfor the Record: Perspectives from the DHS Frontline 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to provide a statement for the record in response to the testimony of the National 

Border Patrol Council President, Brandon Judd. 

Staffing 

USBP Attrition 

Mr. Judd testified to the Committee in his opening remarks, 

"According to CBP's own figures. in order to bring Border Patrol up to the congressionally 

mandated floor add 5, 000 new agents and account for his historical 6 percent rate of attrition. the 

Border Patrol will need to hire 2, 700 agents every year for the next jive years. The 6 percent 

attrition, we lose over 1,000 agents per year because they don't like to work for the Border 

Patrol ... 

On January 25, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13767, "Border Security and 

Immigration Enforcement Improvements." Section 8 of the Executive Order states that "subject 

to available appropriations, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), shall take all appropriate action to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol 

agents, and all appropriate action to ensure that such agents enter on duty and are assigned to 

duty stations as soon as is practicable." As of February 8, 2017, the number of Border Patrol 

Agents onboard at CBP was 19,602, which is 92 percent of the statutorily required 21,370 

agents. 

With nearly 60,000 CBP employees in the United States and abroad, CBP is the Nation's largest 

federal law enforcement organization and requires a highly skilled workforce capable of 

successfully meeting the agency's mission requirements. CBP employs a rigorous hiring process 

necessary to meet its mission requirements. The Agency works diligently to recruit, hire, and 

retain the men and women serving in frontline positions that secure the Nation's borders and 

facilitate lawful trade and travel. However, CBP recognizes the challenges regarding hiring and 

attrition and over the years, has taken steps to address. CBP continues to make some progress in 

meeting frontline hiring goals, however, work remains. CBP remains committed to its hiring 

goals and aggressively addressing these challenges. 

2 
81 

CBP Statement for the Record: Perspectives }rom the DHS Frontline 

The attrition rate for Border Patrol agents in Fiscal Year 2015 was 5.5 percent. CBP remains 

focused on reducing attrition by employing a multifaceted approach. As a result of the agency's 

efforts, attrition decreased to 4.3 percent in Fiscal Year 2016. 

CBP continues to carefully study attrition rates and reasons why employees may choose to leave 

CBP employment, particularly to join other federal agencies or state and local law 

enforcement. In Fiscal Year 2016, 27 percent of attrition was from retirements. During the first 

six months of Fiscal Year 2017, retirement remains among the top reasons employees leave 

CBP. 

After retirement, the top reasons for leaving the position are: I) inability to relocate to a location 

considered more desirable and 2) a desire to be closer to family. We have also noted in the last 

several fiscal years, an increase in attrition due to losses to other agencies. Several agencies have 

the ability to offer higher levels of compensation and frequently offer employment in locations 

that are considered "metropolitan areas" which are highly competitive to many of the CBP's 

remote locations. 

To address these issues, CBP is looking at a spectrum of steps to make the work environment 

more attractive for current employees, to include the greater use of retention incentives. CBP is 

also focused on 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. 

The recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey showed improved trends for CBP relative to job 

satisfaction, leadership, and results-driven performance culture from Fiscal Years 2015 to 2016 

and while this is a positive, the agency is studying additional avenues to address the retention 

challenge. 

CBP greatly values the commitment of employees; however, we must find ways to address 

compensation and mobility concerns if we are to continue to improve. 

Polygraph 

3 
82 

CBP Statement for the Record: Perspectives from the DHS Frontline 

Mr. Judd testified to the Committee in response to questions from Senator Lankford (R/OK) on 

pre-employment concerns. 

"I will tell you right now we have I have spoken with Commissioner Kerlikowske, with Deputy 

Commissioner McAleenan and tell them and blue in the face about this polygraph issue and they 

just refUsed. lfthey change it, they have to admit that they were wrong And they refused to admit 

they were wrong. We are not administering the polygraph correctly. If we do that, we will not 

have the kinds of problems we currently face. And Senator Flake is introducing legislation. Why 

does it take legislation to fix a problem that's this simple?" 

Further, Mr. Judd responded to questions from Senator Hoeven (RIND) on the disparity in the 

polygraph examination results: 

"!believe that that Commissioner Ker/ikowske put forth his anti-- he had an initiative that he put 

forward and I believe that to show that initiative, he had to have a high failure rate. And so now 

that we-- now that Commissioner Kerlikowske is no longer around-- I'm sorry-- the anticorruption initiative is what he put forth Now that we are going to have a new commissioner, 1 

believe that we get to hit the reset but as Senator Heitkamp said, we can we can actually do it 

right because if he was to change the way he did the polygraphs he would have had to admitted 

that he was wrong. And we know people just don't/ike admitting that they're wrong. " 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues to seek improvements to the polygraph 

program both internally and externally. Secretary Kelly has made clear that we will not lower 

standards to increase hiring, and ensuring our frontline personnel are of the highest integrity and 

trustworthiness is critical. 

The Anti-Border Corruption Act of2010 ("ABCA") mandates that CBP polygraph its law 

enforcement applicants. The purpose of the ABCA was to effectively scrutinize and prevent 

corrupt individuals from being hired into frontline law enforcement positions within CBP. 

Though our standards remain uncompromising, CBP is taking a systematic approach toward 

addressing the Agency's staffing requirements under the Executive Order without compromising 

quality for quantity. 

CBP is currently working to improve the administration of the polygraph examinations, 

including benchmarking against other agencies to look at ways to improve our protocols. As part 

of this effort, Acting Commissioner McAleenan recently approved the testing of a new 

polygraph protocol that is accredited by the National Credibility Certification Authority for 

testing with the next hiring announcement for Border Patrol Agents. 

CBP is also considering whether to pursue flexibility to waive the polygraph requirement for 

certain candidates who have a demonstrated track record of integrity and service, such as 

4 
83 

CBP Statement/(>r the Record: Perspectives from the DHS Frontline 

military veterans, federal, state, or local law enforcement personnel in good standing, who 

maintain current background examinations and in some cases have completed polygraph 

examinations previously. 

CBP is also working with the Committee, providing technical assistance, on Senator Flake's 

(RI AZ), "Boots on the Border Act of 20 17" (S. 595). 

Air and Marine Operations 

Mr. Judd testified to the Committee in response to Senator Carper's (DID E) question on force 

multiplier solutions to obtain border security: 

"Force multipliers are extremely important. What I will tell you is that we do have an awful/at of 

technology that werejustflat-out not utilizing. For instance, early in my career helicopters flew at night. 

We had no problem getting night coverage and what's interesting is the vast majority of the arrest that take 

place on the border happen at night. 

Right now the Office of Air and Marine, they fly very little at night. In fact in RGB, we had to use Coast 

Guard to fly sorties in certain areas and when their apprehensions became so great, the officer, it's my 

understanding the officer at Air and Marine asked them not to fly anymore at night in RGB because it was 

making them look bad 

So, what we have to do is we have to take to the technology and the resources that we do have and we have 

to utilize that technology and resources correctly. But the problem is when we see on the Office of Air and 

Marine not utilizing the technology correctly or the way that we've utilized it before, and yet this individual 

who was the head of the Office of Air and Marine is now the acting deputy commissioner, you know, we're 

rewarding ineptness that's happened under his watch. " 

The total number oft1ight hours in coordination with U.S. Border Patrol has risen steadily since 

the creation of Air and Marine Operations (AMO). Since the merger in 2006, AMO's manned 

and unmanned enforcement flight hours dedicated to the USBP in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) 

Sector has nearly quadrupled, from 1,905 to 7,412 in Fiscal Year 2016. Air and Marine 

Operations' night flight hours in the RGV area during Fiscal Year 2016 totaled approximately 

2,560 or 31 percent of enforcement hours. Additionally, from 2006 thru 2016, approximately 95 

percent of AMO's enforcement flight hours in RGV were dedicated to U.S. Border Patrol. 

CBP maintains a positive, coordinated, and collegial relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard. 

U.S. Coast Guard aircraft have not been requested by the U.S. Border Patrol for land border 

operations. Through the Regional Coordinating Mechanism (ReCoM), the Coast Guard supports 

and executes many coastal and offshore aviation efforts in close coordination with CBP, but 

none on the land border. Further, Air & Marine Operations has not asked the U.S. Coast Guard 

to cease any operations. Through Joint Task Forces, JTF-Wand the South Texas Corridor I Rio 

Grande Valley and associated ReCoMs, CBP and U.S. Coast Guard are confident that are 

5 
84 

CBP Statement for the Record: Perspectives from the DHS Frontline 

working relationship is where it needs to be and a lot of good work has resulted from our joint 

efforts." 

Rockville, MD Case 

Mr. Judd testified to the Committee in his opening remarks, 

"Senator, had we hove done our job, that 14-year-old girl would hove never been raped, period. 

That's all there is to it. Had we have held those individuals in custody or that that one individual 

in custody pending a determination whether that person should be allowed to remain in this-- in 

this country, that rape wouldn't hove happened." 

CBP enforcement efforts were not compromised as it relates to the two juveniles who came into 

USBP custody last year. The juveniles were apprehended by CBP USBP Agents and processed 

pursuant to legal obligations under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 or "TVPRA" (Pub. L. II 0-457), as amended, that requires all 

children under the age of 18 from Central America, to be turned over to the Department of 

Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). CBP had no role in the 

custody determination by HHS-ORR, and these processes are driven by statute. Although Mr. 

Judd alleges that "had we done our job" this horrible crime would have not occurred, we must 

clarify the record that CBP apprehended these individuals and turned them over through ICE to 

HHS. CBP enforced the law to the fullest extent. 

Border Patrol Operations at Ports of Entry 

Mr. Judd testified to the Committee in his opening remarks, 

" ... And you brought up that we're talking only about between the ports of entry. We are currently 

deploying Border Patrol agents to the ports of entry. It makes no sense. It absolutely makes no 

sense. We should not be using Border Patrol resources at the ports of entry. " 

The temporary deployment of Border Patrol agents (BPAs) to the Ports of Entry (POEs) are for 

short periods of time with minimal U.S. Border Patrol staffing to address counter-network 

objectives that benefit operations across the border. The deployments are centered around 

specific border security operations, like outbound currency or weapons smuggling, and/or for 

intelligence purposes. It is at the discretion of each Sector Chief Patrol Agent to consider any 

request for assistance to the POEs. Currently, CBP has a small number of BP As assigned 

temporarily from within the following sectors for limited operations: Rio Grande Valley; Laredo; 

6 
85 

CBP Statement for the Record: Perspectives from the DHS Frontline 

Del Rio; Big Bend; Detroit and Tucson. The Havre Sector as well as the Buffalo and Houlton 

Sectors do not have any BP As permanently assigned to any POE, however, in order to facilitate 

integrated operations and for additional work experience for the K9 teams, schedule permitting, 

K9 teams are assigned a POE on a limited basis. These K9 teams are still available for between 

the port operations if needed. Further, CBP does not have BPAs assigned to POEs within the 

following sectors: Yuma; El Centro; San Diego; Blaine; Spokane; Grand Forks; Ramey; New 

Orleans; and Miami. 

Effectiveness Rates 

Mr. Judd testified to the Committee in his opening remarks, 

"We [USBP} only had a 50 percent effectiveness rate. That's the problem. So, not only were the 

individuals that we were actually arresting, not only were we releasing those individuals, but we 

were only apprehending one out of every two that was crossing the border illegally." 

The Fiscal Year 2017 first quarter Interdiction Effectiveness Rate (IER) was 82.94. This measure 

takes into account three elements: apprehensions, tumbacks, and gotaways. Each day, stations 

review the data within their areas of responsibility to reconcile the data that makes up Border 

Patrol's IER. 

7 
86 

NATIONAL 

IMMIGRATION 

FORUM 

Statement for the Record 

U.S. Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee 

Hearing on 

"Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and 

Requirements" 

March 22, 2017 

The National Immigration Forum (Forum) advocates for the value of immigrants and 

immigration to the nation. Founded in 1982, the Forum plays a leading role in the national debate 

about immigration, knitting together innovative alliances across diverse faith, law enforcement, 

veterans, labor and business constituencies in communities across the country. Coming together 

under the Forum's leadership, these alliances develop and adYocate for legislative and 

administrative policy solutions. Through our policy expertise and work with diverse 

constituencies, the Forum works to uphold America's long-standing tradition as a nation of 

immigrants and builds public support for comprehensive immigration reform, sound border 

security policies, balanced enforcement of immigration laws, and ensuring that new Americans 

have the opportunities, skills and status to reach their full potential. 

Introduction 

The National Immigration Forum thanks the Committee for the opportunity to provide its 

views and expertise on the matter of staffing resources and requirements at the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), particularly U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The Forum 

also thanks the dedicated men and women of CBP who work every day to keep our nation's 

borders secure and facilitate commerce and travel into the United States. We acknowledge and 

appreciate the complexity and importance of CBP's mission, which is charged every day with 

implementing a comprehensive approach overseeing customs, travel, immigration and border 

security responsibilities with a $13.2 billion budget in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and more than 6o,ooo 

employees.i At the same time, we believe that creating a secure border takes more than just 

investing resources on one or a few components of CBP's approach to border management and 

control. We urge the members of the Committee to address the on-going need to invest in a 

comprehensive approach to secure our borders and in policies that are humane, transparent, 

encourage commerce, and consider the impact these policies have on tbe tens of millions of 

Americans who live along our borders. 

Congress should also consider the need to fix our broken and out-of-date immigration 

system. Leading national security officials agree that ha\ing a 21'' century immigration system 

that promotes safety and security, benefits American workers and our economy, and provides 

earned legalization for othcm~sc law-abiding undocumented immigrants would have the most 

significant impact in promoting security at our bordcrs.ii We must choose policies that keep us 

safe, but that also facilitate trade, tourism and the economic health of the United States. With a 
87 

21" century immigration system, we can develop effective border security policies that promote 

safety along our borders and improve border management, while staying true to our principles as 

a nation of immigrants, economic innovation and common-sense laws. 

Invest in Personnel and Infrastructure at Ports of Entrv 

CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO), which oversees the flow of commerce and 

immigrants at all 328 ports of entry in the United States, requires additional investments. CBP 

OFO plays a critical role in the economic health and national security of our country. In FY 2016, 

CBP OFO welcomed more than 1 million travelers each day - or 390 million for the year - and 

processed a total of nearly $2.3 trillion in trade and more than 27 million cargo containers. iii Yet, 

through FY 2014, CBP OFO identified a shortage of 3,811 OFO officers.iv The magnitude of the 

shortage is amplified by the fact that adding a single CBP OFO officer to a port of entry would 

result in annual benefits of a $2 million increase in our country's Gross Domestic Product (GOO), 

$640,000 saved in opportunity costs, and 33 jobs added to the economy.v While staffing for the 

Border Patrol nearly doubled between FY 2004 and FY 2014 (increasing from 10,819 to 21,381), 

CBP OFO staffing at ports of entry increased less than 25 percent during this period (from 18,110 

to 22,274).'" Investments to increase personnel levels at ports of entry can help better manage the 

flow of commerce and immigrants through our borders. 

We also need to invest in infrastructure at our ports of entry to keep pace with increasing 

demand and security requirements. The revenue gained from trade at the border generates jobs 

for Americans -in fact, nearly six million American jobs depend directly on trade with Mexico.vii 

Yet, wait times to cross the border are often long, sometimes up to a 55 minute delay for 

commercial vehicles, viii which can detract from commerce and lead to billions of dollars in spoiled 

goods and opportunity cost. Furthermore, research shows that because enforcement resources 

have been so focused between ports of entry with Border Patrol agents, processing at ports of 

entry is often lacking. Individuals entering the United States without documentation through a 

land port have about a 1 in 4 chance of being apprehended, compared to 90 percent for those 

entering between ports of entry.ix The need to invest in infrastructure, combined with CBP OFO 

understaffing, leave our ports of entry more susceptible to transnational drug, weapons and 

human smuggling. We believe that investment at our ports of entry, including in personnel and 

infrastructure, is an important and pressing aspect of border security and management. 

Invest in Body-Worn Cameras for CBP 

In addition, we encourage Congress to invest in funds to implement use of body-worn 

camera technology at CBP. The use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement has gained 

significant momentum in recent years as a best practice of 21''-century policing. CBP has already 

started the process of implementing body-worn cameras by requesting quotes to purchase 108 

body-worn cameras.' By fully investing in body-worn cameras, Congress would allow CBP to 

finally fund its implementation of body-worn camera technology in the agency's operating 

environments and to develop an agency-wide policy on the technology. Overall, the 

implementation of body-worn cameras in the agency would provide an additional layer of 

protection for CBP agents and officers and the millions of Americans who live in communities 

across the border. The evidence indicates that body-worn cameras lead, in one study, to 88 

percent fewer complaints against officers'; and fewer assaults,xii creating a win-win solution for 

the public and law enforcement. Not only could body-worn camera technology reduce complaints, 

but it could also reduce use-of-force incidents,Xiii provide scenario-based training for future law 

enforcement agents and officers,xiv and quickly resolve officer-related incidents."'" The technology 

could also strengthen accountability and transparency on both sides, helping CBP to gain the 

2 
88 

public's trust in border communities. CBP has a significant opportunity to be a leader in 21'1

-

century policing by implementing body-worn cameras across the agency. 

Invest in Fencing and/or Technology Where Effective 

Congress should invest in funding to build barriers on the Southwest Border only where 

the use or placement of such a barrier is the most appropriate solution and fencing has not already 

been built. CBP has already built fencing or other physical barriers on the areas that they have 

determined are operationally necessary. In 2011, the Border Patrol identified a total of 652 miles 

of the Southwest Border as operationally necessary for fencing and barriers."'; By 2015, the United 

States had built border fencing along 653 miles of the Southwest Border, including 353 miles of 

primary pedestrian fencing, 300 miles of vehicle fencing, 36 miles of secondary fencing behind 

the primary fencing, and 14 miles of tertiary pedestrian fencing behind the secondary fence. xvii As 

a result, it is important that Congress provide DHS with the discretion in consultation with local 

communities to determine whether a fence is the most appropriate option to secure any additional 

areas of the border, since constructing a wall spanning the entire Southwest Border would cost 

between $25 billion to $31.2 billion."'iii It is estimated that it would cost about $274 million to 

maintain the fence already built along the Southwest border. A fence that is nearly three times 

longer is estimated to cost at least $750 million a year to maintain.xix Congress should support 

barriers on the Southwest Border where DHS, with the input from local communities, determines 

it is appropriate. 

Congress should also continue to provide appropriations for CBP to use modern 

technology to monitor areas on the Southwest Border and elsewhere in which a physical barrier 

is not the most appropriate solution to secure the border. CBP already relies heavily on 

technology, which at times serves as a better force multiplier than a fence, in order to secure the 

United States' borders and ports of entry. In 2015, CBP had at least 273 remote video surveillance 

systems with day and night cameras deployed on the Southwest Border.xx In addition, the agency 

used 49 mobile surveillance systems, which are truck-mounted infrared cameras and radar.xxi CBP 

also has applied mobile surveillance systems, remote video surveillance systems, thermal imaging 

systems, radiation portal monitors and license plate readers in the Southwest Border and operates 

at least 10 Predator B unmanned aerial drones, which provide surveillance of the border along 

Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.xxi Congress should continue to assess the effectiveness of these 

technologies and to invest in technology to monitor areas of the border where building a fence is 

not appropriate and such monitoring is necessary. 

Invest in a Federal Program to Remove Carrizo Cane and Salt Cedar Plants 

Another investment to ensure safety at our borders is to fund a federal program to 

eradicate the invasive and nonnative Carrizo cane and salt cedar plants along the Rio Grande 

Valley in Texas, which would provide the Border Patrol with greater visibility and access to the 

Rio Grande.xxiii As border community residents like Dennis E. Nixon, the CEO of International 

Bank of Commerce in Laredo, Texas, have noted before, the density of the Carrizo cane and salt 

cedar plants allows the plants to become a hiding place for immigrants and criminals who 

unlawfully enter the United States and, in that process, makes the Border Patrol and other law 

enforcement agents vulnerable to criminal groups.xxiv 

These plants, which cover between 30,000 and 6o,ooo acres, must be removed from the 

riverbanks and re-populated with native prairie grasses that have limited growth potential and 

can be easily and economically maintained. Estimates indicate that it would cost approximately 

$200,000 to remove 700 acres of the Carrizo cane and salt cedar plants. The total cost to remove 

3 
89 

up to 6o,ooo acres of cane would be approximately $17.1 million.xxv Once the Carrizo cane and 

salt cedar plants are eradicated, the Border Patrol will have access to patrol the riverbank and full 

view of the area. Furthermore, the Border Patrol's visibility of the riverbank can be enhanced with 

more investments in modern technology. Unlike a wall or obstructive fence, which would limit 

physical access to the riverbanks and block Border Patrol agents' visibility, eradicating the Carrizo 

cane and salt cedar plants is a faster, more affordable and more effective approach to patrol and 

control the Rio Grande. This approach grants Border Patrol agents the physical access and 

visibility to protect the border. 

Don't Change Security Standards 

We urge Congress to maintain DHS' current security requirements related to the hiring 

and onboarding of new personnel. On February 20, 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly issued a 

memorandum directing CBP to begin the process of "immediately hiring" 5,000 additional Border 

Patrol agents.xxvi This proposed hiring surge would be the largest since Congress doubled the 

number of Border Patrol agents from nearly 10,000 in FY 2001 to nearly 20,000 in FY 2oo8.=ii 

During that hiring surge, the Border Patrol had trouble screening candidates, leading to a spike 

in internal corruption cases.xxviii In response, Congress passed the Anti-Border Corruption Act in 

2010, which led to polygraph testing as a requirement for all Border Patrol agents. xxix CBP now 

adheres to established best practices to ensure those selected for duty can carry out the 

responsibilities that are expected of them. However, changes to the hiring process, such as 

loosening the requirement for polygraph examinations that candidates undergo as part of a 

background investigation, increase the risk for corruption. To assist the dedicated CBP agents 

who work every day to keep our nation's borders secure, we must maintain the current security 

requirements to help CBP regain the public trust and strengthen its ties with communities along 

the border. 

Carefully Examine Whether More Border Patrol Agents are Needed 

Congress provided funds in FY 2016 to station 21,370 Border Patrol agents-- an all-time 

high level and more than double from FY 2000 --along our country's borders.= Yet, on February 

20, 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly directed CBP to begin the process of hiring 5,000 additional 

Border Patrol agents.xxxi We urge Congress to carefully examine whether spending money to hire 

and station more than 21,370 Border Patrol agents along our country's borders is the most 

effective investment to secure our borders. At the moment, CBP has not hired the 21,370 

personnel authorized by Congress. CBP had 19,828 Border Patrol agents in FY 2016, which means that the agency still has to hire an additional 1,542 agents with the funds already obligated by 

Congress last year.xxxii 

In addition, investing in additional Border Patrol agents may not be the most appropriate 

use of American taxpayer funds. The Border Patrol's budget increased from slightly more than $1 

billion in FY 2000 to almost $3.6 billion in FY 2016, or about 245 percent in fifteen years.xxxiii As 

the Border Patrol's budget expanded, the amount spent by the Border Patrol per apprehension at 

the border increased almost 1,300 percent from $630 per migrant in FY 2000 to over $8,760 per 

migrant in FY 2016.xxxiv Meanwhile, the average annual number of apprehensions for each border 

patrol agent dropped from 182 in FY 2000 to just less than 21 in FY 2016.=· Investment in 

additional Border Patrol agents to secure the border will not provide significant returns on border 

security, partly because the number of apprehensions at the border has dropped from about 1.6 

million in FY 2000 to less than 416,ooo in FY 2016, a 75 percent decrcase.=·i We encourage 

Congress to carefully examine whether adding an additional s,ooo Border Patrol agents is the 

most effective solntion for border management and control. 

4 
90 

Conclusion 

We thank the Committee for holding this hearing and considering the best policies related 

to CBP staffing resources and requirements while facilitating trade, tourism and the economic 

health of the United States. We support investment in policies that are thoughtful, effective, and 

improve border management, including investments at ports of entry, in body-worn cameras for 

CBP agents and officers, in modern technology at the border, and in a program to remove Carrizo 

cane and salt cedar plants along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. In conclusion, one of the most 

important and cost-effective to ensuring that our borders are secure is to pass legislation 

that would create a "'-'--'-"~""-'.LL!.!.Uu.!<"-'-'"'-"'-'-"='"'"'~· 

; Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Public Law No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242 (December 18, 2015): 

!ill:Jls: //www.eongress,gm:Ln!1LJ2lillvs/publ ll'l/PLAW-1 14publi13.pdf. 

H Chertoff, Michael, Janet Napolitano and Tom Ridge, "8th Anniversary of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Roundtable," interview by Andrea Mitchell, Georgetown University (March 2, 2011): 

https: //w\\w.dhs.gov /news/201 1 I <nl 02/8th-anniversary-roundta)Jle-transcript . 

;;;"CBP Facilitates Record Level of Travelers and Modernizes Trade Systems in FY 2016," U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (January 12, 2017): https:l/w\nY.cbp.gov/newsroominational-media-rclease/cl:w::: 

faeilitaks-reeonJ-leYel-tntn•Jers-and-modernizes-trade-svstcms. 

i~ .. u~s-:-c~~t_;;~~-;;;;-,Jjj~~de~-Pr~tec-ti;ri"·s- Workload Staffl;;gM-;;del," Office of Inspector General, 

Department of Homeland Security (July 2014): 4, hlt_m;:/ /\mw.oig.dhs.JM).V/assets/l\ig_!Jl~Ot4/0IG 14:: 

117 .J ulM,Jldf. 

v v "CBP's Role in Strengthening the Economy," U.S. Customs and Border Protection (May 2014): 

https:i/www.cbp.gov/sitcs/d<•fault/fil<•s/dociiments/Fact%20Slwet%2oROS%2oCBP%2oStrengthening 

.?.:9_;f9l~eonomv. pdf 

,; "U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Trade Facilitation, Enforcement, and Security," Congressional 

Research Service (June 22, 2015): 34, 

httllUDYW":K'TilliillW.<l!:.t.eoml files I 201 5QQ22 &uo 14 4e62 bzd o'lf8 bc6ad 'l 'l5'l729a 'lC76<nedd?c6qe 

Hh.pdf. 

v;; Alcocer, Sergio M., "Managing the Mexico-U.S. Border: Working for a More Integrated and Competitive 

North America," The Anatomy of a Relationship: A Collection of Essays on the Evolution of U.S.-Mexico 

Cooperation on Border Management, Wilson Center Mexico Institute (June 2016): 25, 

!tttmd}_':L\~)l:J.Yilsoncenter.org/sit<•;:/ default /files/ anatonw border evQ!!ltil!ILLJS mexico cooperation.p 

di. 

vm Becker, Gary, "Move to Reduce Border Wait Times is Step Forward for Trade," U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce (January 19, 2016): hltw:l/www.uschai.Jlbcr.com/above-tlw-fold/mQl:C-reduc!Z_bordci·Waitill.m:;;.-step-fon'·ard-tr!l!k. 

;x "Without Strategy: America's Border Security Blunders Facilitate and Empower Mexico's Drug Cartels," 

Texas Border Coalition (January 12, 2012): 3, 

h!tp_:Jbnyw.texashordercoalition.ou;LJexas Border Coalition/Wdcomc filc:,'i[I'BC%2oReportWilhout%2oStrategy:J::iML!llif 

x "CBP Requests Quotes to Purchase 108 Body-Worn and 12 Vehicle-Mounted Cameras," U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (September 14, 2016): https:/lwww.chp.gov/ncwsroomlnational-mediardi~b)~f.dm-J:ill.lll~'il":~U1lQ1'~"--lll' rc hasc- 1 oiic:hDJl~ rn-a nd- 1 2~ Yehiel e-ll1!l\lll tl'd . 

,; "Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned," Police 

Executive Research Forum (2014): 

!ill:Jlj/www.pQlicclililJlll.<>rg/asselsidoes/Free Online DocumeiiliLl'echnologv/implementing%20a%20 

!lQ.dv-\\·Q.rn%2ocam_sra't0:wprogram.pdf. Citing: Farrar, William, "Operation Candid Camera: Rialto 

Police Department's Body-Worn Camera Experiment," The Police Chief(January 2014): 20-25. 

xH Michael D. White, Police Officer Body-worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence 6, Office of Justice 

Programs Diagnostic Center, Department of Justice (2014): 

5 
91 

h1tJbU iJDn,.,iUJ2£!Jl!ll!l_\l.'itiecenter.org/sitesldefault/files/spotlight/dO\mload/Poliee%<>oOfficer%c>oBody-

~~ilf.L12fl;? UCnm.ri.ill~_,_mlf . xH; Ibid. 

xiv "Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program," 8. 

~Lopez, James, Jacinta S. Ma and Josh Breisblatt, Body Cameras and CBP: Promoting Security, 

Transparency and Accountability at Our Nation's Borders," National Immigration Forum (November 6, 

2015): 13. hHJlJLir!lll!igr;ltionforum.org/wp-contc•nt/uploads/2015/11/Bodv-Camcras-and-CBP-Rcportllil_Q.'i.QliP_,ll . 

"'"Testimony of Michael J. Fischer, Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

"Does Administrative Amnesty Harm our Efforts to Gain and Maintain Operation Control of the Border?" 

House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, 112th U.S. 

Congress, I" session, (October 4, 2011): https:/ /1l:.\\}Ldhs.gov/news/2011/J.Q}J;M~rittcn-tcstimonv-cbph0J!£it.:.hilllll.~bnd-sccuritv-suhcommittee-border-and-maritime. 

xvii "Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry," Congressional Research Service 

(Apri119, 2016): 29-30, 

IJtt ps :JJ ';:w,-:.c.\<'!'Y.mi.rr:J'_ott.~Q.l!![files /2Q 1 6o4_!9.._1{4 2 1 'l8 __ 5.\)g_uf33.'Jg_G£_;mg_crJli553illlfz2a cd 989648hco 

4.<Lm!f. 

xvi;; Nowrasteh, Alex, "A Tax on Remittances Won't Pay for a Border Wall," CATO Institute (January 24, 

2017): l.Lt1Jh:ihDn,:,1J.ttQ,Q1.:gLhillm<!.1'.::r<'mittam:c§.:}YQllt-pa;--border-;v;;_U. 

xix Kim, Seung Min, "Trump's Immigration Tab: $!66 Billion," Politico (August 19, 2015): 

h J lJJ.: l/"''1':\\:,UQHtk'' .co lllLeJ<>.!:Yb\USLYJl/.ilD na ld-trumps-immigration-tab-Jf>Q::billio n··I21500 

""Breisblatt, Josh, "Border Security Is not Just More Fences and Technology," National Immigration 

Forum (May 13, 2015): !l!tu:ilimmigrmionforurrh'J.a;Lbl0gj_b<mkr:sccuritv-is-nol-just-more-fenccs-and1tdHW1ugyL . 

xxi Trevizo, Perla, "Officials: Past Border Tech Efforts Failed, But This One Won't," Arizona Daily Star 

(December 26, 2015): h~;son.com/tH,ws/localloffieials-past-border-lech-efforts-failed-but-thisone-won/artiele 2192fa1f-47h6-5954-8575-8a74fc69t8:w.html. 

xxH "Privacy Impact Assessment for the Aircraft Systems," U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(September 9, 2013): 4, https://;mw.dhs.gov/sites/debul\L!.il~lpubliea!.iJm.;;fprimcy-pia-cbp-aircrati­

;;yi;it.\:mGc:g_{_lJ3.'2.9.-'i0,llil.f. 

xxHi Aguilar, Juan, "New Effort to Wipe Out Carrizo Cane Reignites Environmental Debate," The Texas 

Tribune (April 5, 2016): hJ.Uli:i:lLl"~'J.c.tcxastribune .org/2016/ o4/ os/ncw-carrizo-cradieation-effortrei,lnites-old-Jcbatl. 

,;;;;;Nb<on, D-;;;:;;:;;~~f., "Common Sense Border Security: Thoughts from Dennis E. Nixon," (January 2017): 

3, h tliL<sll~illl~,jlK.·i~QJJJi ('n-

.!15/I\r:\illJl.mllLllu£1!.illi:Il1$JC!lmnwn%2oSensc?(l'·)oRorder'Yf)2oSecuritv%2oSo1utions.pdf. 

="Texas Spends $8oo Million on Border Security, But Shorts Carrizo Cane Eradication Project," The 

Texas Tribune (June 15, 2016): http:/lvallevenltral.com/ncws/loeal/tcxas-spencls-8oo-million-onlillnlc.r::~:1~\l!:ID:::lli!t-sltorts-carrizo-cane-eradit·ation-!lliUITL 

""'"John Kelly, "Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 

Improvement Policies," U.S. Department of Homeland Security (February 20, 2017): 3, 

i:J..W.l!i: I imrw.dhs_.gov /sitcs/defaultL!!Jg'ifll.!JJ>lieations/t7 0220 S1 Implementing-the-PrcsidcntsJJ!2I!ki::.fu:c.nritv-lm migration- El)foreement-1 mprovcnwnt-Polieics.pdf. 

xxvii "United States Border Patrol: BP Staffing FY 1992 to FY 2016," U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(October 2016): bJtps://www.cbp.gov/sites/defaultJ..illes/asscts/d<>cumcnts/2ol6-

Q\'tLJJ_l~2{lJLQ_Qln.filng(Y,;2 QEY19.9.£:.EY 2() 16._udf • 

xxviii Rosenberg, Mica, "Former Border Patrol Officials Question Trump Plan to Add Agents," Reuters 

(February 24, 2017): lJ.Jjp;J1Yi!\W.ITIJtcrs.c&!lll.rutidc/us-usa-immigration-agents-idUSKBNr6·3250. 

xxix Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010, Public Law No. 111-376, 124 Stat. 4104 (January 4, 2011): 

llLU?s.Lb\:m;:,fQJ.!ll[es"'wjbill/Itlth-congn'ss/scnatc-billl324'31text. 

=Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016; "United States Border Patrol: BP Staffing FY 1992 to FY 

20!6." 

xxxi Kelly, "Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvement 

Policies." 

xxxii "United States Border Patrol: BP Staffing FY 1992 to FY 2016." 

6 
92 

"""';;"United States Border Patrol: Enacted Border Patrol Program Budget by Fiscal Year," U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (2016): https: //ww,u·bp.go,·/sites/default/t1lcs/assets/documcntsho!6-

Q~Ull_l~.?21ltlCjg[>t'ti,2oHistorv%20J990-20J6,rujf. 

=iv =iv "United States Border Patrol: Enacted Border Patrol Program Budget by Fiscal Year;" "United 

States Border Patrol: Total Monthly Apps by Sector and Area, FY 2000 to FY 2016," U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (October 2016): https://w,vw.cbp.goY/sites/detimlt/t1Ics/asscts/clncumcntsl2ol6-

QWBP%2oTotal%2o1VIonthlyJ'()20Apps%2oln-%2oSertor%:Loand%2oArca%~C%2ol•Y· .. ooo-FY20l6.pdf. 

"""""United States Border Patrol: BP Staffing FY 1992 to FY 2016;" "United States Border Patrol: Total 

Monthly Apps by Sector and Area, FY 2000 to FY 2016." 

""""'"United States Border Patrol: Total Monthly Apps by Sector and Area, FY 2000 to FY 2016." 

7 
93 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Brandon Judd 

From Senator Claire McCaskill 

"Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements" 

March 22, 2017 

I) Are an appropriate number of Border Patrol agents physically patrolling the border every day? 

If not, how many Border Patrol agents are needed on patrol to secure the southern and northern 

borders? 

A I) There are not. As I stated, we are 1, 700 Agents below the Congressional mandated floor 

and our current rate of hiring is not even keeping up with attrition. Already, we are seeing how 

the Jack of manpower is impacting our ability to counter the cartels. I believe we need a total 

force strength of 26,3 70 Agents. Furthermore, as uniformed law enforcement agents we do not 

have traditional weekends. We work 7 days a week and 24 hours a day requiring us to assign 

days of duty during the entire week. Because of this structure, on any given day we have 

approximately 40% of our manpower off duty. Approximately 30% of our manpower are 

performing administrative duties, while only 30% are assigned patrol duties. I'll explain how 

this can be fixed in my answer to your second question. 

2) At the hearing and in meetings with Committee staff, you mentioned that there are 

inefficiencies within Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that include high management to 

agent ratios, and the unproductive use of Border Patrol agents' time. What do you think are the 

most pressing inefficiencies facing CBP with regard to the Border Patrol? How, if at all, can 

these inefficiencies be remedied? 

A2) Let me give you three examples: 

I. We have twice the number of managers as we should. There is no reason why, 

through attrition, we could not go from our current ratio of about 4.5: I to 9:1. A good 

number of our managers are nearing retirement age and as they depart, I believe we 

should not back fill the position until we reach a proper ratio. Doing this would put 

another 2,000 Agents into the field. This does not negate our need for 5,000 new 

Agents. Our recommendation of 5,000 was predicated on us "right sizing" a bloated 

agency. 

2. We currently task law enforcement agents to perform administrative processing duties 

of all individuals we apprehend. This is incredibly time consuming and a waste of 

resources. Administrative processing could be contracted out or government 

employees could be hired at a lower GS level without law enforcement authority. 

Under INS, we used to have Detention Officers who performed a lot of our 

administrative duties, but when DHS was created, we lost Detention Officers. 

3. When I first joined the Border Patrol and we were part of the Department of Justice, 

we had our own air support. The pilots were all Border Patrol Agents. They knew 

their areas of operation like the back of their hand, they knew the Border Patrol, and 

when you called for help you got it. When Congress created the Department of 
94 

Homeland Security, our air support was eventually spun off into what is now AMO. 

Having AMO as a separate organization in my opinion was a mistake. We do not 

have the same flight hours we once had and the bulk of the flight hours take place at 

times when we have the least amount of illegal border crossings. Instead of acting as 

a supporting organization, AMO is attempting to carve out a distinct mission. I 

believe that AMO should be put under Border Patrol's control. 

3) IfCBP were to address some of its management problems and inefficiencies, such as the use 

of agent time to perform administrative tasks, how many additional Border Patrol agents would 

the Border Patrol need to fulfill its mission? How many additional support staff would be 

needed? 

A3) As I stated earlier, if we can reform the management structure at Border Patrol and shift 

some of the administrative tasks to civilians, such as processing, I believe we would still need an 

additional3,500 Agents on the southwest border and an additional1,500 agents on the northern 

border. 

One of the things that I would like to point out is that staffing at OBP is very different than OFO. 

For example, OFO knows exactly how many planes are landing at Dulles International Airport 

on a given day and how many officers it will take to process the passengers in a reasonable 

amount of time. Their staffing model is relatively straight forward. This is not the case with 

OBP because we are always being probed by the cartels. Ground zero for illegal immigrants and 

drug smuggling used to be San Diego and El Paso. When the Border Patrol addressed those two 

key smuggling corridors, traffic shifted to the Tucson, Arizona Border Patrol Sector because we 

had very little manpower in that sector. We no sooner plugged one hole in the dike when 

another one opened up. If we do not comprehensively address border security, we will never get 

a handle on the problem, this includes the northern border. 

4) If Border Patrol hires 5,000 additional agents, should they all be stationed at the southern 

border? If not, where should they be stationed? 

A4) Absolutely not. We are recommending that 3,500 go to the southern border and 1,500 to the 

northern border. We are woefully understaffed at the northern border and at any given time we 

only have approximately 350 Agents covering 4,000 miles of some of the toughest terrain in this 

country. 

Border Wall 

President Trump has ordered that a 2,000 mile concrete border wall be built on the southern 

border. 

5) At the hearing you stated that improving existing fencing instead of building a 2,000 mile 

concrete wall could help secure the border. Why would this be more efficient and/or effective? 

AS) Right now we only have 350 miles of primary border fencing along the southern border. 

Before we build one more mile of primary fencing, we need a secondary fence behind what we 

already have. A secondary fence allows us to maximize our manpower. 
95 

In areas where we only have only a primary fence, it takes approximately one Agent to control 

one mile of the border. Where we have a secondary fence one Agent can control approximately 

3 miles of the border. 

In terms of additional primary fencing, I believe we need approximately 300 additional miles. 

Priority areas for me would be Del Rio and Laredo Texas and the Tohono Odom Indian 

reservation in Arizona. 

Whistle blower protections 

During the hearing on March 22, 2017, hearing participants discussed instances of retaliation 

against whistleblowers and reluctance amongst agents and officers to report waste, fraud and 

abuse. 

6) Have any of your members reported similar problems? If so, please provide details. 

A6) Yes we have and let me give you one example relevant to this Committee. On March 17, 

2015 Border Patrol Agent Chris Cabrera testified under oath before the HSGAC Committee that 

the Border Patrol was manipulating the statistics on apprehensions. Specifically, Border Patrol 

management was requiring that if an Agent detected more than 20 sets of foot prints they were 

required to call a supervisor to the scene to verify the number. This supervisor call out 

requirement often times took over an hour and in many instances meant the entire group of 

illegal immigrants or drug smugglers evaded capture entirely. Agents who regularly called out 

groups larger than 20 were subsequently assigned undesirable duties as punishment. 

The reason that management was doing this is because a key metric that the Border Patrol 

considered and used at the time to tout their effectiveness was "got aways". For example, if you 

see 30 footprints and you catch 20 individuals you know that 10 individuals "got away". 

Management knew that if they artificially suppressed the true size of the groups that illegally 

crossed the border, it would lower the number of"got aways" and make the Border Patrol appear 

more effective than it actually was. Border Patrol regularly asserted that it was apprehending 

nearly 75 to 80 percent of the illegal traffic. However, if you ask any field Agent what the 

apprehension rate was they would tell on a good day it was less than 50 percent. 

Within 48 hours of Agent Cabrera's testimony, he was issued what is known as a Notice to 

Appear (NT A) by DHS. NT As are issued to Agents facing disciplinary action so that they can 

be questioned. The Border Patrol Council informed the Committee immediately of the NT A and 

Senator Johnson personally called then Deputy Secretary Mayorkas. Senator Johnson made it 

clear that the Committee would not allow its witnesses to be intimidated. After the call, the NT A 

was immediately withdrawn. 

Similarly, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015. During my testimony, I 

provided agency statistics that showed that we were approximately 50% effective in 

apprehending known illegal border crossers. Within a week of the hearing the agency retaliated 

against my agents by suspending their Health Improvement Program. They did not suspended 

the program for management, they only suspended it for the rank-and-file who I was elected to 

represent. They suspended it after my testimony even though they knew their operations were 
96 

unsuccessful due to the months and months of data they had. The agency knew the rank-and-file 

would take out their ire on me- an elected official -which they did. 

It was also right after this testimony that I was informed that the agency was looking into the 

possibility that I and other NBPC officers were corrupt. The allegations, which came from 

management were completely unfounded. 

I want to raise these issues because there is legislation that has passed the Oversight Committee 

in the House (H.R. 1364) that may eventually come before this Committee. H.R. 1364 is an 

attack on official time and specifically prohibits federal employees from educating Congress on 

official time. It also denies any retirement credit for employees who are I 00 percent official 

time. 

If Congress does pass H.R. 1364, it will effectively be cutting off a valuable source of 

information about what is really going on in the Executive Branch. This legislation would 

preclude, in my opinion, Congressional testimony or even answering your staffs questions 

related to border security. In case of Agent Cabrera's testimony, the fact that he has I 00 percent 

official time does afford him a small measure of protection against retaliation. Although we are 

eternally grateful that Senator Johnson acted so quickly to defend Agent Cabrera that is not a 

long term solution. At the hearing you were adamant that whistleblowers can come forward and 

be protected. I appreciate your willingness to stand behind people who want to do the right thing 

however, many potential whistleblowers are 20 years away from retirement. They need more 

than the personal assurances from an individual Senator that they will be protected. 

Lack of hiring plan 

7) Does CBP need additional Human Resources (HR) staffing to hire 5,000 additional agents? 

What other staff (polygraphists, security specialists etc.) would be necessary in addition to HR 

staff in order to onboard additional agents? 

A 7) This is something that would be best addressed by the agency. I am unsure whether their 

current manpower can process the hiring of 2, 700 new Agents every year for next 5 years. I do 

know that there will be through put issues at the academy which I believe can handle 

approximately 1,200 prospective Agents per year. 

8) What does CBP management need to do to prepare for onboarding an additional 5,000 agents? 

A8) I think one of the things that CBP needs to do is take a look at the training at the academy. 

During the Bush Administration, the academy was cut from about 20 weeks to as little as 55 days 

if you spoke Spanish. This was a critical mistake and we need to return to a 20 week academy 

like the rest of federal law enforcement. 

9) What problems currently exist with the polygraph process? How should they be addressed? 

A9) Let me address this in a larger sense. The goal of the whole hiring and training process is to 

onboard individuals who have both the personal character and the judgement to be in federal law 

enforcement. Law enforcement is not for everyone and the hiring and training process ideally 

should be there to make sure undesirable applicants are not hired. 
97 

Personally I think we have put too much weight on the polygraph and it should be an element in 

the hiring process, but not the deciding factor. You can have an individual pass the polygraph 

who is dishonest person, but bluffs their way through. This dishonestly can come to light during 

the background investigation. You can have a person pass the polygraph, but makes all the 

wrong tactical decisions in the field. Finally you can have a person pass the polygraph who is 

lazy and does the bare minimum. 

What I would advocate for is a polygraph, a vigorous background investigation, and then a 

difficult training academy. All three of these measures will not only weed out malfeasance, but 

also give us a workforce that is worthy to serve in the Border Patrol. 

Enforcement Priorities 

I 0) What kind of guidance or training has CBP provided to Border Patrol agents outlining 

Secretary Kelly's enforcement priorities? Was this guidance sufficient? Have Border Patrol 

agents had trouble implementing or understanding these priorities? 

A 10) The agency has provided little to no training on the enforcement priorities. In my sector 

for instance, the only thing provided was a "read and sign" of the Border Security Executive 

Order. In other words, we were instructed to sign a log indicating that we read the Executive 

Order. We didn't have to understand it, we just had to read it. In short, our training on priorities 

or how to go about our mission has been nearly non-existent. Yes, agents have had a difficult 

time understanding the priorities, so much so that I had to send an email to Acting Commissioner 

McAieenan and Chief Patrol Agent Vitiello outlining the difficulties. 
98 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Mr. Brandon Judd 

From Senator Kamala Harris 

"Department of Homeland Security Staffing Resources and Requirements" 

April 6, 2017 

The President's executive order requires that CBP hire an additional 5,000 border patrol agents, 

an increase of nearly 25%. On February 17, CBP Acting Commissioner Kevin McAleenan 

issued a memo suggesting that the current hiring standards for CBP be lowered by loosening the 

polygraph testing standard currently in place. 

Ql Do you agree that loosening current hiring standards, particularly as CBP looks at a 

significant hiring surge, would leave the agency more vulnerable to corruption and security risks 

that could impede the integrity and safety of the entire workforce? 

A I I would not categorize what CBP is proposing as loosening standards or threatening the 

integrity of the agency's workforce. CBP's current process is simply not working and last year 

we were able to hire only about 500 new Agents. The reforms being suggested by CBP frankly 

make sense. If an applicant, for example, is currently serving as a local law enforcement officer 

and passed that agency's polygraph recently I do not see why we could not accept that. 

Q2 Do you agree that we can expect drug cartels and other bad actors to use this hiring surge as a 

means of infiltrating the CBP just as they did during the previous hiring surge? 

A2 I do not think that this hiring surge, if done correctly, will present any greater danger than the 

danger we already face. To be clear, the cartels are always looking for vulnerabilities and they 

have never stopped trying to undermine the Border Patrol. Personally, I think the greater danger 

is the lack of manpower. We are currently 1,700 Agents below the Congressional mandated 

floor. That is approximately the size of the entire Tucson or El Paso Police Department and is a 

greater threat to our security. 

President Trump has proposed building a wall across the southern border that could cost upwards 

of $66 billion based on current per-mile cost information provided by the CBP. The 

Administration made a supplemental request of $999 million for FY 17 and $2.6 billion in FY 18 

to move forward with construction on the wall. In a January 26, 2017 NPR interview when asked 

about President Trump's plan to build a wall, you stated "but what we're talking about is a wall 

in strategic locations. We're not talking about a great wall of the United States. We're not talking 

about a continuous wall from California down to Texas. We're talking about a wall in strategic 

locations which then helps the Border Patrol agents do their job better." 

Q3 Do you still believe a continuous wall along the southern border is not necessary? 

A3 I do. Right now we currently have 350 miles of primary fencing along the southern border. 

Before we build one more mile of primary fencing, we need a second fence behind what we 

already have. This secondary fencing will allow us to maximize our manpower. In areas where 
99 

we only have a primary fence, it takes one Agent to control one mile of the border. Where we 

have a secondary fence, one Agent can control approximately 3 miles of the border. 

Q4 Which specific "strategic locations" are you referring to where you believe that a wall will 

help agents do their job better? 

AS. In terms of additional primary fencing, I believe we need approximately 300 miles. Priority 

areas for me would be Del Rio and Laredo Texas and the Tohono Odom Indian reservation in 

Arizona. 
100 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Anthony Reardon 

From Senator Claire McCaskill 

"Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements" 

March 22, 2017 

Whistleblower protections 

During the hearing on March 22, 2017, hearing participants discussed instances of retaliation against 

whistleblowers and reluctance amongst agents and officers to report waste, fraud and abuse. 

I) Have any of your members reported similar problems? If so, please provide details. 

I am not aware of any instances of retaliation against whistleblowers at CBP's Office of Field 

Operations (OFO). By law, NTEU must represent the interests of all employees in the unit it represents, 

without regard to labor organization membership, including employees who face sexual harassment, 

hostile work environments, retaliation, and who want to act as whistle blowers. 

NTEU presence in the workplace allows the union to represent employees who want to act as 

whistleblowers or who are retaliated against for whistleblowing activities. Consequently, there is less 

reluctance on the part of employees to report waste, fraud, abuse, and illegal activity without fear of 

retribution by management. 

Recruitment 

2) How can CBP improve the hiring process? Please provide examples of specific changes that you 

think should be implemented. 

Besides the complaints about the polygraph process, NTEU has heard that CBP candidates 

frequently are subject to a segmented hiring process where they are required to travel hundreds of miles 

in some cases to fulfill the tests and procedures required under the application process, and there may be 

breaks between each of these activities. This can be a significant hardship for applicants that results in 

them dropping out of the hiring process. 

In addition to improving the lengthy and segmented hiring process, NTEU believes that CBP 

should ask for the authority and use recruitment, retention and relocation incentives (3 Rs) to attract 

candidates to remote or hard-to-fill locations. When using a recruitment incentive to attract employees 

to a certain location, CBP must be mindful that this incentive should be used in conjunction with 

retention incentives. Otherwise, the agency has newly-hired employees working side-by-side with 

veteran employees that not only are denied the opportunity to transfer out, but may also now be paid less 

than new recruits. The 3 Rs are also needed to attract transfers to the most severely short staffed ports, 

such as San Ysidro, Nogales and Laredo. 
101 

Finally, if the hiring problems that have left over 3,000 funded CBP positions vacant are rectified and 

as CBP embarks on the hiring of additional frontline personnel as set forth in recent Executive Orders, 

CBP may need to expand their training classes. When experiencing a hiring surge in the past, the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) instituted a 6-day training program to accommodate 

the expanded classes. NTEU supports FLETC 6-day training, as long as the employees are paid for 6 

days of training. 

3) Are you concerned that the pending hiring surge at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

will pull a large number of CBP agents and officers away to become ICE officers and create 

further staffing shortages on the border and at ports of entry? What do you think can be done by 

CBP management to eliminate this issue? 

One factor that makes applying for an ICE agent job more appealing than applying for a CBP 

Officer position is that ICE agent applicants are not required to take a polygraph. 

NTEU has grave concerns about the Secretary's intent to unify pay systems at DHS. The number 

one recruiting and retention tool for CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists that keeps these positions 

competitive with other federal law enforcement agencies is the Customs Officer Pay Reform Act 

(COPRA) pay system. COPRA contributes to the low OFO attrition rates, corresponding high retention 

rates, and the high-quality caliber of uniformed employees. CBP Officer and Agriculture Specialist 

morale would plummet if COPRA were replaced by another pay system. 

4) Would eliminating the polygraph requirement improve the hiring process? 

NTEU does not seek to reduce the standards used by CBP in their hiring process, but believes 

that there is a problem with how the polygraph is currently administered. We ask for CBP to review its 

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. Also, because ICE does not 

require polygraphs for job applicants, it is likely that CBP will not be competitive with ICE in attracting 

new hires. Congress should weigh requiring ICE applicants to also take the same polygraph required for 

CBP applicants. 

NTEU commends Congress for including in the FY 2017 Defense authorization bill a provision 

that authorized the CBP Commissioner to waive polygraph examination requirements for certain 

veterans applying for CBP job openings. Congress is currently considering additional legislation that 

further expands the authority to waive polygraph examinations for veterans and allow exemptions for 

existing state and local law enforcement officers who apply for these positions. NTEU has asked to be 

included in these discussions and to work with CBP and Congress in drafting needed legislation. 
102 

5) Please describe any feedback that you have received from NTEU members on the necessity and 

effectiveness ofCBP's use of the polygraph as a vetting tooL 

NTEU has received considerable feedback on the polygraph. The majority of the comments are 

that the manner in which the polygraph is administered is unnecessarily grueling and abusive. Many 

applicants have walked out or declined to pursue a job at CBP, even after they have passed the 

polygraph. The current polygraph now serves as a deterrent to potential job applicants. Current CBP 

employees are the best recruiters for these jobs, but as they hear about the polygraph experiences from 

high caliber applicants that they know, they no longer recommend that family and friends apply for these 

jobs. 

Enforcement Priorities 

6) What kind of guidance or training has CBP provided to CBP officers outlining Secretary Kelly's 

enforcement priorities? Was this guidance sufficient? Have CBP officers had trouble 

implementing or understanding these priorities? 

CBP Officers do their jobs as directed by law and policy. When a new policy goes into effect, it 

is always prudent for sufficient notice of any changes to be provided and for clear, precise, and uniform 

guidance to be issued. CBP Officers operate with professionalism and, when a citizen is flagged for 

secondary inspection, which usually consists of reviewing passport and other travel documents with CBP 

personnel at the national targeting center, Officers do their job as efficiently as staffing allows. Again, 

CBP Officer staffing shortages affect the time travelers spend in secondary inspection. 

Then, as now, NTEU' s primary concern is to make sure that staffing and resources at the port of 

entry are addressed. Whatever Congress does to address illegal crossings between the ports, with either 

increased BPA staffing and or a new wall or fencing, will funnel more illicit incursions into the POEs 

where there are already severe staffing shortages. 
103 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Mr. Anthony Reardon 

From Senator Kamala Harris 

"Department of Homeland Security Staffing Resources and Requirements" 

April6, 2017 

President Trump's recent budget proposal provides for hiring of 5,000 additional border patrol agents, 

10,000 immigration enforcement officers, and over $4 billion for the construction of a wall along the 

southern border. This budget request comes despite the fact that apprehensions at the border have 

decreased by 75% since 2000. Yet, as you noted in your testimony, the Administration's budget proposal 

does not include any increases for Office of Field Operations (01'0) agents responsible for overseeing 

operations at the nation's 328 official ports of entry. OFO plays a critical role in protecting our country 

from terrorism and national security threats. 

I. In your assessment, what national security risks are we currently facing by continuing to 

underfund the OFO? 

In fiscal year 2016, CBP officers at the ports of entry encountered over 274,000 undocumented 

immigrants, seized over 600,000 pounds of illegal drugs, as well as over $62 million in illicit currency, 

while also processing over 390 million travelers and $2.2 trillion in imports through the ports. 

Whatever Congress may do to address illegal crossings between the ports, whether by increasing 

Border Patrol Agent staffing and/or by adding a new wall or fencing, would just funnel more criminals, 

terrorists, drug and human smugglers into the ports of entry where there are severe staffing shortages. 

There is currently a staffing shortage of 3,500 CBP Officers and 631 Agriculture Specialists. 

Prior to the establishment of DHS, the only international terrorist trying to enter the country was the 

millennia! bomber who was apprehended at Port Angeles, Washington. His car was pulled over for 

further inspection because the Customs Officer spotted anomalies in the car's look and the driver's 

behavior. Such observations take skill, experience and time. Short staffing at the ports undermine the 

Officer's ability to use all three of these factors while performing their duties. 

The risk of successful incursions through the ports of entry by terrorists, smugglers and other 

criminals increase when ports are under constant pressure to limit wait times while working shortstaffed. Ports need to hire up to the level specified in CBP's own workload staffing model in order to 

address existing trade and travel traffic. If this traffic increases significantly due to routing illegal 

activity, as well as undocumented individuals, into the ports, it will become impossible for CBP Officers 

and Agriculture Specialists to stop bad people and bad things from corning through the ports without 

significantly increasing overall wait times, which harms legal international trade and travel. 

2. What are the public safety risks of tmderfunding and understaffing at OFO? 
104 

The public safety risks ofunderfunding and understaffing at OFO are overwhelming for CBP 

Officers, especially for those "drafted" to work up to 16 hours a day, day in and day out, at severely 

short-staffed ports, such as San Ysidro. 

At short-staffed ports, drafting occurs during the Officers' first shift. A supervisor will draft an 

employee for an additional 8 hours near the end of their first 8 hour shift. The Officer ultimately works 

16 hours straight. This leaves 8 hours until their next shift. An Officer may get 5 hours of sleep before 

having to wake up and suffer more, physical, mental and emotional exhaustion. 

Below is a testimonial from just one of dozens of CBP Officers at San Y sidro/Otay Mesa Passenger 

Operations that have contacted NTEU about the effect of short staffing on their physical and mental 

health and on the wellbeing on their family, coworkers and people that they serve: 

The 16 hour shift in particular has me worried as an officer. There is no way an officer can make good 

decisions when working past 12 hours. We carry guns and have to make serious life threating decisions 

while drafted and working 16 hours. When I work 16 hours it is usually after the 12th hour that I find 

myself losing focus and energy. It is not safe for me to be in a gun carrying position and work those long 

hours. Last year. a fellow CBP officer that worked on my shift crashed his vehicle on his way home after 

being drafted to work 16 hours. He fell asleep at the wheel a few blocks from his home and hit a couple of 

vehicles. 

Speaking with fellow officers I have found that the overall morale of this port is extremely low. I feel that 

the number one reason for this is that nobody knows if they will be allowed to go home at the end of their 

shift because they might get drafted to stay another 8 hours. There is a revolving door for new officers. 

The new officers arrive. get drafted, look for a new job, and then leave. Most of the officers I work with are 

constantly looking for a new job so that they can leave this place. The crazy thing is that San Diego is a 

beautiful city to live in but when you don't have the time to enjoy your life, it is no wonder everyone wants 

to leave San Ysidro. 

As you can see, this is a miserable, unrelenting experience and is unsustainable. With a vacancy 

rate of 3 50 funded Officer positions at the San Diego Field Office alone and with no improvement in 

sight in the hiring process or the funding of additional new hires, CBP OFO will continue to burn out and 

wash out existing employees and new recruits. 

3. What is the economic impact to the United States through continuing to underfund the OFO and 

our ports of entry? 

According to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), "every day 1.1 million people and $5.9 

billion in goods legally enter and exit the U.S. at these ports of entry." Increasing CBP Officer staffing at 

the ports of entry is an economic driver in the trade and travel industry. CBP OFO pursues a dual 

mission of safeguarding American ports, by protecting the public from dangerous people and materials, 

while enhancing the Nation's global and economic competitiveness by enabling legitimate trade and 

traveL 
105 

The volume of commerce crossing our borders has more than tripled in the past 25 years. Long 

wait times lead to delays and travel time uncertainty, which can increase supply chain and transportation 

costs. According to the Department of Commerce, "border delays result in losses to output, wages, jobs 

and tax revenue due to decreases in spending by companies, suppliers and consumers." JEC research 

finds border delays cost the U.S. economy between $90 million and $5.8 billion each year. 

CBP estimates that hiring an additional I ,000 CBP Officers at the ports of entry would increase 

economic activity by $2 billion and result in an additional33,148 jobs per year in the U.S. economy. 

Congress must fund and hire the needed 3,500 CBP Officer and 631 CBP Agriculture Specialist 

positions to adequately staff the port of entry to mitigate the country's national security threats, address 

public safety risks and to grow the economy. 
106 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Chris Crane 

From Senator Claire McCaskill 

"Perspectives from the DHS Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements" 

March 22, 2017 

Lack of hiring plan 

The hiring of an additional 10,000 ICE officers is a massive undertaking. It requires careful and 

deliberate planning, and staff to process applications and vet applicants. ICE has told us that in 

addition to the additional 10,000 officers and agents, they plan to hire an additional 6,000 

additional support staff to fulfill their mission. 

1) Do you think 6,000 additional support staff is an appropriate number to complete ICE's 

mission? 

2) Do you have concerns about ICE's ability to recruit and onboard this many people while 

also trying to recruit and on board the additional 10,000 officers? If yes, what do you 

think could be done to mitigate your concerns? 

3) What is the current management culture at ICE? Can ICE sustain the onboarding and 

management of an additional 16,000 individuals? 

Recruitment 

In the past when hiring surges have moved too quickly, some officers with criminal backgrounds 

were hired. 

4) Are you concerned that filling 10,000 new positions will force your organization to lower 

standards in exchange for filling these positions? What plans are currently in place to 

ensure this doesn't occur? 

5) Do you think ICE leadership would be willing to sacrifice training standards in order to 

gain large numbers of additional agents quickly? 

6) Why does ICE struggle with recruiting women for front-line positions? What do you 

believe should be done to remedy this persistent problem? 

7) Are you in favor of ICE adding the polygraph to its intake process? If so, what 

experiences have led you to this belief? What do you believe the polygraph adds and/or 

subtracts from the intake process? 
107 

Whistle blower protections 

During the hearing on March 22, 2017, hearing participants discussed agency retaliation against 

whistleblowers. 

8) Can you please share some specifics of any instances you are aware of? 

Training of front-line agents and officers 

9) How can ICE improve the hiring process? Please provide examples of specific changes 

that you think should be implemented. 

Enforcement Priorities 

I 0) What kind of guidance or training has ICE provided to agents and officers outlining 

Secretary Kelly's enforcement priorities? Was this guidance sufficient? Have officers 

and agents had trouble implementing or understanding these priorities? 

Witness responses to questions submitted for the record were not received 

by time of printing. 
108 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Mr. Chris Crane 

From Senator Kamala Harris 

"Department of Homeland Security Staffing Resources and Requirements" 

April 6, 2017 

During your testimony on March 22, you stated that you are not aware of any specific 

training that has been provided to ICE officers related to the seven enforcement priorities listed 

in Secretary Kelly's memo issued on February 20 entitled "Enforcement of the Immigration 

Laws to Serve the National Interest." 

1. Have you since become aware of such training, and, if so, please describe the training 

and/or guidance that has been provided? 

2. How is the training being furnished and communicated to officers and at what intervals? 

3. If the training and/or further guidance is in writing, please furnish a copy of the same. If 

the training was verbal, please provide a written summary of the same. 

4. You noted in the hearing on March 22, "the priorities don't work on the street, the way 

they worked in the Obama Administration," with regards to enforcement prioritization. 

Under the new enforcement priorities articulated by Secretary Kelly in his February 20'h 

memo, do ICE agents now have the discretion prioritize enforcement decisions as they 

see fit based on their judgments in the field? 

Applicants for ICE officer/agents positions do not go through polygraph testing. During 

your testimony on March 22, however, you noted polygraph testing is "on the horizon" for ICE 

and could be implemented in 2018. 

1. What is the basis for this statement? 

2. Please provide any information, including written communications from any person in 

the Department of Homeland Security or any federal agency that supports this statement. 

3. Please provide any information as to your understanding of when and how new 

polygraph testing will be implemented at ICE? 

During your March 22 testimony, you identified a number of systemic problems at ICE 

including low employee morale, unaccountable management, and calcified thinking from 

management. You also specifically said that President Trump's "emphasis on enforcing the 

nation's laws will not completely solve the overall morale crisis within the agency." 

1. Are you aware of any new policies or actions taken by ICE of DHS management to 

improve the systemic problems at ICE that you identified in your testimony, specifically: 

1 
109 

Æ 

a. Low employee morale? 

b. Undue administrative tasks for frontline law enforcement officers? 

c. Unbalanced management to frontline officer ratios? 

d. Retaliation against whistleblowers from management? 

e. Non-mission use of unmarked cars? 

During your March 22 testimony, you said, "ICE has practically no policies. The agency 

generally depends on INS policies from 20 years ago or more or they just have no policy at all." 

What specific issues would you like ICE to issue policies on? 

My understanding is that ICE only separates children from their parents during detention 

under specific circumstances. 

1. Under what circumstances does ICE separate mothers from their children during 

detention? 

2. What approval processes are there for approving the separation of mothers from their 

children during detention? 

3. When was the last time that ICE officers were issued guidance or communication related 

to this issue? 

4. Please furnish any documentation related to the guidance or communication referenced in 

the previous question, or provide a written summary if such guidance or communication 

was issued verbally. 

Witness responses to questions submitted for the record were not received 

by time of printing.