[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION ON HOMELAND SECURITY: SCARE TACTICS OR
POSSIBLE THREAT?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 12, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-584 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Chris Stewart, Utah Steven A. Horsford, Nevada
Keith J. Rothfus, Pennsylvania Eric Swalwell, California
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Steve Daines, Montana
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Greg Hill, Chief of Staff
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, Chairman
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Ron Barber, Arizona
Keith J. Rothfus, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steve Daines, Montana Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Ryan Consaul, Staff Director
Deborah Jordan, Subcommittee Clerk
Tamla Scott, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress From the
State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Ron Barber, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
WITNESSES
Panel I
Mr. Rafael Borras, Under Secretary for Management, Management
Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 13
Mr. Thomas S. Winkowski, Deputy Commissioner, Performing the
Duties of the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 21
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 13
Mr. John Halinski, Deputy Administrator, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 22
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 13
Mr. Daniel H. Ragsdale, Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 24
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 13
Panel II
Mr. Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council:
Oral Statement................................................. 45
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
For the Record
The Honorable Ron Barber, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Statement of Colleen Kelley, National President, National
Treasury Employees Union..................................... 50
THE IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION ON HOMELAND SECURITY: SCARE TACTICS OR
POSSIBLE THREAT?
----------
Friday, April 12, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Management
Efficiency,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:06 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Duncan
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Duncan, Rothfus, Hudson, Daines,
Payne, O'Rourke, and Thompson (ex officio).
Mr. Duncan. I think we have musical chairs going on down
there, but I think we have got it set, so I will go ahead and
call the meeting to order.
Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to again
express the subcommittee's frustration with DHS over not
providing us written testimony on time. I find it troublesome
that the Department could not submit its testimony in
accordance with the committee rules, especially since its
invitation was sent on March 22. That was 21 days ago. The
witness on the second panel submitted his statement in
accordance with committee rules, yet his invitation was not
sent until April 8. Committee rules are here for a reason. We
expect them to be followed. If the Department has a problem
following rules, I would be happy to discuss this with the
Secretary.
The Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Management Efficiency will come to order. The
purpose of this hearing is to determine if sequestration will
in fact hinder our homeland security, or will it help to
address out of control spending?
I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Airport
screening lines that are hours long, borders vulnerable to
illegal aliens, stalled commerce at our border crossings. These
are just some of the devastating impacts that the
administration said were inevitable because of the 5 percent
budget cut for DHS due to sequestration.
On March 1, 2013, sequestration took effect, resulting in a
series of automatic across-the-board spending cuts for the
Federal Government. With the National debt growing by the
second, it is time the United States Government take a hard
look at its out-of-control spending.
If properly planned, budget cuts due to sequestration
should not dangerously compromise our homeland security.
Doomsday rhetoric to put fear into the American people is not
the way our Government should operate, especially now that most
of these predictions have not come to fruition.
In a March 4, 2013, letter to the Governor of my home
State, Nikki Haley, Secretary Napolitano stated, average wait
times to clear Customs will begin to increase by up to 50
percent. Our biggest land ports may face wait times of up to 5
hours or more.
Less than a month after the South Carolina delegation
received a copy of this letter, DHS has now backtracked.
Customs and Border Protection is postponing or reevaluating its
warned mass furloughs. Multimillion-dollar grants are still
been awarded by FEMA. TSA says that it will be implementing a
hiring freeze, but the usajobs.gov still list openings for
airport security personnel throughout the country. In fact, TSA
employs about 2,000 more security personnel today than it did
in 2008, a time that air travel was much higher than it is
today. It seems the reports of disaster are greatly exaggerated
by the Department.
Just to be clear, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
release of 2,000 illegal aliens was not a planning decision to
offset the effects of sequestration. Not only was this action
done in advance of sequestration, I believe it was done
purposely as another tactic to scare Congress and the American
people. DHS should administer sequestration in a thoughtful
manner, without jeopardizing our safety.
Although through sequestration, each budget account will
have to be cut equally, the Department does have flexibility
within these accounts to reduce spending to programs with lower
priority; not to mention components may carryover tens of
millions of dollars each year, which is never talked about, but
which may also help the DHS offset current spending reductions.
Most recently, we have also heard much talk from DHS on
implementing security in a risk-based way, yet the Department
has for the most part shied away from implementing sequester
with a risk-based approach. Instead, some of the components
plans seek to share the pain first and foremost. This approach
is nonsensical, especially when it means allowing dangerous
criminal aliens awaiting deportation back on the streets and
holes in our border security to remain unplugged. Why not
consider a risk-based approach, where our greatest risk and
vital travel locations are mitigated to the maximum extent
possible?
As pointed out in this subcommittee's first hearing back in
February, the Department has many wasteful and duplicative
programs that it can choose from to reduce spending, whether
through its procurement and acquisition process or through its
grants management.
Recently Senator Tom Coburn also reminded us that DHS
spends taxpayer dollars for thousands of man-hours of work that
are never performed through various types of administrative and
other leave.
In advance of sequestration, the Department had adequate
time to properly plan so that its core missions and operations
would not be negatively impacted.
Now, let me be clear: Sequestration was the result of the
August 2011 debt ceiling deal known as the Budget Control Act.
August 2011. Let's see. That was 18 months prior to the
implementation of sequester. I know that Government agencies
hoped that sequestration wouldn't happen. In fact, for months,
the administration used hope as its strategy. Hope may be a
nice campaign slogan, but it is a sorry management strategy.
Sequestration is yet another example of DHS failing to
effectively communicate to the American people. All the
contradictions make your head spin. DHS has said no amount of
planning would mitigate the effects of sequestration, but
planning is now taking place to do just that.
The administration opposed any flexibility to dull some of
the pain, yet DHS is considering reprogramming request. I hope
the Department can clarify what to date has been complete
confusion for the American people.
Finally, I believe that our men and women on the front
lines protecting our homeland are focused and resourceful
individuals that can rise to the challenge of protecting the
homeland within this budgetary climate.
The Department must ensure that our boots on the ground are
provided the necessary resources to complete their mission. If
that means cutting inefficient and wasteful programs, I welcome
those initiatives.
Hard-working American families have had to make cuts to
their budget. Even my Congressional office was able to cut 15
percent of its budget on top of the mandatory cuts by operating
our office like a business. DHS and Government as a whole
should take a page from the private sector when implementing
cuts due to sequester.
I appreciate the participation of our distinguished
witnesses here today. I am eager to hear about how the
Department's sequestration plan and efforts are coming and our
current state of homeland security.
It is critical in this time of financial tightening that we
make sure that our infrastructure is protected, that our
borders and airports are secure and that we are able to fully
support the American people without unnecessary spending.
[The statement of Chairman Duncan follows:]
Statement of Chairman Jeff Duncan
April 12, 2013
Airport screening lines that are hours long, borders vulnerable to
illegal aliens, stalled commerce at our border crossings; these are
just some of the devastating impacts that the administration said were
inevitable because of the 5% budget cut for DHS due to sequestration.
On March 1, 2013 sequestration took effect, resulting in a series of
automatic, across-the-board spending cuts for the Federal Government.
With a National debt growing by the second, it's time that the U.S.
Government take a hard look at its out-of-control spending.
If properly planned, budget cuts, due to sequestration, should not
dangerously compromise our homeland security. Doomsday rhetoric to put
fear into the American people is not the way our Government should
operate--especially now that most of these predictions have not come to
fruition. In a March 4, 2013 letter to the Governor of my home State of
South Carolina, Secretary Napolitano stated: ``average wait times to
clear customs will begin to increase by up to 50 percent . . . our
biggest land ports may face waits of up to 5 hours or more.''
Less than a month after the South Carolina delegation received this
letter, DHS has now backtracked. Customs and Border Protection is
postponing and re-evaluating its warned mass furloughs. Multi-million
dollar grants are still being awarded by FEMA. TSA says it will be
implementing a hiring freeze, but USAJOBS.gov still lists openings for
airport security personnel throughout the country. In fact, TSA employs
about 2,000 more security personnel now than it did in 2008, a time
that air travel was much higher. It seems the reports of disaster are
greatly exaggerated.
And, just to be clear, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
release of 2,000 illegal aliens was not a planning decision to offset
the effects of sequestration. Not only was this action done in advance
of sequestration, I believe it was done purposely as another tactic to
scare Congress and the American public. DHS should administer
sequestration in a thoughtful manner, without jeopardizing our safety.
Although through sequestration each budget account will have to be
cut equally, the Department does have flexibility within those accounts
to reduce spending to programs with lower priority. Not to mention,
components may carry over tens of millions of dollars each year, which
is never talked about, but which may also help the DHS offset current
spending reductions.
Most recently, we have also heard much talk from DHS on
implementing security in a ``risk-based'' way. Yet the Department has,
for the most part, shied away from implementing sequester with a risk-
based approach. Instead, some of the components' plans seek to ``share
the pain'' first and foremost. This approach is nonsensical; especially
when it means allowing dangerous criminal aliens awaiting deportation
back on the streets and holes in our border security unplugged. Why not
consider a risk-based approach where our greatest risks and vital
travel locations are mitigated to the maximum extent possible?
And as pointed out in this subcommittee's first hearing in
February, the Department has many wasteful and duplicative programs it
can choose from to reduce spending, whether through its procurement and
acquisition process or through its grants management. Recently, Senator
Tom Coburn also reminded us that DHS spends taxpayer dollars for
thousands of man-hours of work that are never performed through various
types of administrative and other leave.
In advance of sequestration, the Department had adequate time to
properly plan so that its core missions and operations would not be
negatively impacted. Let me be clear: Sequestration was the result of
the August 2011 Debt Ceiling deal known as the Budget Control Act.
August 2011. Let's see--that was 18 months prior to the implementation
of the sequester. I know that Government agencies hoped that
sequestration wouldn't happen. In fact, for months, the administration
used ``hope'' as its strategy.
Hope may be a nice campaign slogan but is a sorry management
strategy.
Sequestration is yet another example of DHS failing to effectively
communicate to the American people. All the contradictions make your
head spin. DHS said no amount of planning would mitigate the effects of
sequestration. But planning is now taking place to do just that. The
administration also opposed any flexibility to ``dull some of the
pain.'' Yet DHS is considering reprogramming requests. I hope the
Department can clarify what to date has been complete confusion for the
American people.
Finally, I believe that our men and women, on the front lines,
protecting our homeland are focused and resourceful individuals that
can rise to the challenge of protecting the homeland within this
budgetary climate. The Department must ensure that our boots on the
ground are provided the necessary resources to complete their mission.
If that means cutting inefficient, wasteful programs, I welcome those
initiatives. Hard-working American families have had to make cuts to
their budgets. Even my Congressional office was able to cut 15% of its
budget on top of mandatory cuts by operating our office like a
business.
DHS should take a page from the private sector when implementing
cuts due to sequester.
I appreciate the participation of our distinguished witnesses here
today and am eager to hear about the Department's sequestration
planning efforts, and our current state of homeland security. It is
critical in this time of financial tightening, that we make sure that
our infrastructure is protected, that our borders and airports are
secure, and that we are able to fully support the American people
without unnecessary spending.
Mr. Duncan. The Chairman will now recognize the Ranking
Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Barber, for any statement that he may have.
Mr. Barber. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome the witnesses. Thank you for being with us this
morning. This is a very critical issue that we are examining
today, and I look forward to your testimony and the opportunity
to question all of the witnesses in regard to, I think, one of
the most important questions that we can face as we are dealing
with sequestration, and that is, what will be and what is going
to be the impact of sequestration on our security, the border
security and on the free flow and expedited flow of legal
commercial traffic through our ports?
On March 1, 2013, President Obama signed an order of
sequestration as required by the Budget Control Act. The order
required every Federal Government agency, including DHS, to cut
its budget by 5 percent in every single program, project, or
activity for 2013. The beginning of sequestration was the
failure of the supercommittee to reach a deal on the debt
ceiling, and presumably, I guess we thought, that sequestration
would force an agreement, and obviously, it did not.
Now, 43 days into sequestration, we are here today to
answer the question: What is the impact of sequestration on the
Department of Homeland Security and the security of the
homeland? To some degree, it is too early to tell. We are still
awaiting the final plan from the Department of Homeland
Security on how they will implement what I believe are
irresponsible cuts mandated by sequestration. There are more
prudent ways. We must balance our budget, but there are more
prudent ways to do it.
Without a doubt, the impact will be negative, in my mind.
To me, it is not a question of if sequestration will hinder our
National security and our ability to respond to the real
threats to the United States at our border and across country,
but rather a question of the degree to which it will do so. My
fear is that the real measure of sequestration's impact has yet
to be seen and may not be fully known until it is too late and
we see a tremendous rollback of border security.
What I do know is that the cuts mandated by sequester may
well cause the safety of border area residents and the security
of the Nation to be severely compromised. We have made
improvements in securing our borders; there is no question
about that, but when I look at the traffic through my district,
where we seize 50 percent of the pounds of drugs in the
country, where ranchers and their families are unsafe on their
land every single day, I say we have more to do. As a
representative of the district with over 80 miles of shared
border between Arizona and Mexico, I am greatly concerned about
how we are going to continue our progress under sequestration.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection received enough
funding in the recently-passed continuing resolution to delay
the immediate furlough and elimination of overtime for front-
line Border Security personnel and Customs agents. However,
according to CBP, this may only serve as a temporary relief,
and cuts to overtime and the future furlough of both Border
Patrol Agents and CBP Officers at the ports are still possible.
To me, this is unacceptable.
More efforts are being made to secure our border, and the
Border Patrol is better staffed today than ever in its 88-year
history. These investments in our border are being made because
they are necessary. We have to protect the homeland.
In recent years, we have made progress with respect to
apprehensions, interdictions, and illegal immigration attempts,
and over the past 3 years, the Department has seized 75 percent
more currency, 41 percent more drugs, 159 percent more weapons
along the Southwest Border as compared to fiscal years 2006 to
2008, but there is still more work to be done.
We cannot turn back the clock on border security efforts.
My constituents and the American people deserve better. They
deserve safety in their home and on their land. To my way of
thinking, we should not cede 1 inch of American soil to the
cartels. To roll back these efforts now would create a window
of opportunity for criminals and terrorists to cross our
borders.
I am aware that sequestration leaves little flexibility on
how an agency applies its budgets or cuts. However, cutting
Border Control and Customs agents' overtime and furloughs and
Border Patrol Agents' work hours should only come as a last
resort, and every measure should be taken to prevent this from
happening. I join with the Chairman in saying we have to find
other ways to make those cuts in homeland security than on the
front lines of border security.
As Members of Congress, we play a vital role in ensuring
that the necessary resources are in place to keep our country
safe and our people from harm. As Members of the Committee on
Homeland Security, we must carry out this mission by ensuring
that the Department has the resources it needs to secure our
borders, protect our Nation's communication and information
infrastructure, and take every conceivable measure to protect
the homeland.
This cannot be achieved, I believe, at the same time the
sequestration forces reductions in staffing levels Nationally,
and specifically on the Southwest Border and in my district.
Proposed furloughs and overtime would reduce the force of
Border Patrol Agents on the ground by the equivalent loss of
nearly 25 percent of the workforce. I ask the Members of this
subcommittee and the witnesses giving testimony today: How do
we maintain, how do we continue to improve border security in
our Nation with those types of personnel losses?
To my understanding, the Department is looking at ways in
which it can move money around, and I urge the Department to
quickly bring those recommendations to the Congress so that we
can improve them, hopefully, if they are agreeable to us and
actually make sure that our Border Patrol Agents and our
Customs agents at the ports are properly staffed so that we can
protect our homeland and expedite the free flow of commercial,
legal commercial traffic.
I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ranking Member Barber follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Ron Barber
April 12, 2013
On March 1, 2013, President Obama signed an Order of Sequestration
as required by the Budget Control Act. The Order required every Federal
Government agency, including the Department of Homeland Security, to
cut its budget by 5% in every single program, project or activity, for
2013.
The genesis of sequestration was the failure of the Super Committee
to reach a deal on the debt ceiling.
Presumably, the threat of sequestration would force an agreement.
It did not.
Now, 43 days into sequestration, we are here today to answer the
question: What is the impact of sequestration on DHS and homeland
security?
To some degree it's too early to tell. We are still awaiting a
final plan from DHS on how they will implement the irresponsible cuts
mandated by sequestration.
But without a doubt, the impact will be negative. To me, it is not
a question of if sequestration will hinder our National security and
our ability to respond to the real threats to the United States at our
border and across the country, but rather a question of the degree to
which it will do so.
My fear is that the real measure of sequestration's impact has yet
to be seen and may not be fully known until it's too late and we see a
tremendous roll-back of security at our border.
What I do know is that the cuts mandated by the sequester may well
cause the safety of border-area residents and security of the Nation to
be severely compromised.
According to Secretary Napolitano, the sequester will result in
``diminished capability and capacity to detect and interdict illicit
activity along Arizona's border with Mexico.''
As the representative of a District with over 80 miles of shared
border between Arizona and Mexico, this causes me grave concern.
Fortunately, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) received
enough funding in the recently-passed Continuing Resolution to delay
the immediate furlough and elimination of overtime for front-line
border security personnel.
However, according to CBP, this may only serve as temporary relief
and cuts to overtime and the future furlough of both Border Patrol
Agents and CBP Officers are still possible.
This is unacceptable.
More efforts are being made to secure our border and the Border
Patrol is better staffed today than at any time during its 88-year
history. And these investments in our border are being made because
they are necessary.
In recent years we have made progress with respect to
apprehensions, interdictions, and illegal immigration attempts.
Over the past 3 years, the Department has seized 74 percent more
currency, 41 percent more drugs, and 159 percent more weapons along the
Southwest Border as compared to fiscal years 2006-2008.
But there is much more work ahead. We cannot turn back the clock on
border security efforts. My constituents and the American public
deserve better, they deserve safety in their homes and on their land.
To roll back these efforts now would create windows of opportunity
for criminals and terrorists to cross our borders.
I am aware that sequestration leaves little flexibility in how an
agency applies cuts.
However, cutting agents' overtime and reducing their work hours
should only come as the last resort and every measure should be taken
to prevent this from happening.
As Members of Congress we play a vital role in ensuring that the
necessary resources are in place to keep our country safe from harm.
As Members of the Committee on Homeland Security, we must carry out
this mission by ensuring that the Department has the resources it needs
to secure our borders, protect our Nation's communication and
information infrastructure, and take every conceivable measure to
protect the homeland.
This cannot be achieved at the same time that sequestration forces
reductions in staffing levels Nationally, and specifically on the
Southwest Border and in my district.
Proposed furloughs and overtime would reduce the force of Border
Patrol Agents on the ground by the equivalent of a loss of nearly 25
percent of the work force. I ask the Members of this subcommittee and
the witnesses giving testimony today: How do we maintain and continue
to improve the security of our border and our Nation with those types
of personnel losses?
Today I am honored to have with us Brandon Judd, the National
Border Patrol Union President to speak to this very point. Brandon was
an agent in the Tucson sector, my district, and can speak specifically
to the impacts of these potential cuts.
His members, our Border Patrol Agents, are facing potential cuts in
salary of up to 40 percent. What family can endure those levels of
cuts? And what law enforcement agency can survive a nearly 25 percent
cut in force--not to mention the immeasurable impact on agent morale--
while maintaining and improving security levels?
Our agents rely on this overtime. Our agents' families rely on this
overtime. Cutting our agents' and their families livelihoods undermines
morale and our security.
I thank Brandon for being here with us today. This is an incredibly
important topic and one that deserves the full attention of Congress.
Mr. Duncan. Thank the gentleman from Arizona.
The Chairman will now recognize the Ranking Minority Member
of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
Thompson, for any statement that he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, for holding
today's hearing on an issue that is vital to the Members of
this committee. Today we will hear from the Department of
Homeland Security and three of its component agencies on how
the Department has been affected by sequestration of its budget
and its plans for going forward. We will also hear from the
National Border Patrol Council on how our front-line border
personnel have been affected.
I would like to state at the outset that on August 1, 2011,
I, along with 161 of my colleagues, voted no on the Budget
Control Act, which contained sequestration provisions that went
into effect on March 1, 2013. I maintain my disagreement with
this harsh measure. I agree that steps should be taken to
reduce the Federal deficit; however, a more common-sense
approach that would allow agencies the flexibility to reduce
spending in a more thoughtful manner would be a far better
alternative than sequestration.
Pursuant to the sequester, Federal agencies were hit with a
5 percent across-the-board cut on every program, project, or
activity under its responsibility and control; 5 percent may
not seem large, but when converted to dollars, it is clear that
the sequester will require the Federal Government to operate in
a diminished capacity. For example, Departmental management and
operations is expected to be cut by $24 million. Operational
expenses for the United States Secret Service, which is
responsible for protecting the President of the United States,
the White House and visiting dignitaries, is expected to
receive a cut of $84 million. Federal Air Marshals, the last
line of defense against those who seek to disrupt domestic
flights through criminal or terrorist actions will be slashed
by $49 million and are expected to remain on a hiring freeze.
Aviation security as a whole will receive over $270 million in
reductions. Furthermore, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
is expected to receive cuts totaling approximately $512
million, and its employees appear to be the hardest hit by
these reductions based on the threatened loss of overtime
compensation.
These are not scare tactics. These are real numbers
affecting real people that jeopardize the safety and security
of the United States of America. It is unfortunate that
Congress was not able to reach a compromise on the debt
ceiling. It is likewise unfortunate that years of haphazard
Government spending sparked by two wars and an uptick in
homeland security and defense-related contracts added to the
debt the United States carries. However, it is fundamentally
unfair to send hardworking Federal workers home on furloughs,
expecting these same hardworking employees to work overtime
without being adequately compensated for doing so, and
implementing hiring freezes resulting in overworked,
overstressed Federal employees to become even more overworked
and overstressed with no relief in sight, yet that is exactly
the situation the sequester has created. These cuts come on top
of Federal pay freezes that have been in place for almost 2
years.
In addition to impact on Federal employees, I am deeply
concerned with the effect sequester will have on security and
its potential to place our Nation at greater risk for a
terrorist attack. This concern goes beyond longer lines at the
airports and ports of entries, to increased time frame for
security clearances, reduction in cybersecurity personnel, and
less training for those operating at the heart of our security
apparatus.
There are others who share my concern. The Director of
National Intelligence stated that the sequester is reminiscent
of budget cuts that hampered intelligence operation in the
1990s, and its impact will only be noticed when it is a
failure. The Joint Chiefs of Staff stated, ``in my personal
military judgment formed over 38 years, we are living in the
most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think
sequestration would be completely oblivious to that and
counterproductive.'' These men are not crying wolf.
I stand in agreement with the notion that the Secretary
overstated the immediate impact of sequestration. Whether these
statements were based on information she had at the time the
statements were made or a product of bad planning and
projections by the Department's leadership, the fact is the
statement did not accurately represent what occurred in the
immediate aftermath of the order being signed by the President.
We have a choice. We can spend our time rehashing what
happened and what did not happen compared to what was
predicted, or we can focus on the best way to manage the cuts
that have now become the law and in effect to minimize the risk
to our security. I hope we choose the latter.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
April 12, 2013
Today, we will hear from the Department of Homeland Security and
three of its component agencies on how the Department has been affected
by the sequestration of its budget and its plans for going forward.
We will also hear from the National Border Patrol Council on how
our front-line border personnel have been affected.
I would like to state at the outset, that on August 1, 2011, I,
along with 161 of my colleagues voted NO on the Budget Control Act,
which contained sequestration provisions that went into effect on March
1, 2013.
I maintain my disagreement with this harsh measure.
I agree that steps should be taken to reduce the Federal deficit.
However, a more common-sense approach that would allow agencies the
flexibility to reduce spending in a more thoughtful manner would be a
far better alternative than sequestration.
Pursuant to the sequester, Federal agencies were hit with a 5%
across-the-board cut on every program, project, or activity under its
responsibility and control.
Five percent may not seem large but when converted to dollars it is
clear that the sequester will require the Federal Government to operate
in a diminished capacity.
For example, Departmental Management and Operations is expected to
be cut by $24 million.
Operating expenses for the United States Secret Service, which is
responsible for protecting the President of the United States, the
White House, and visiting dignitaries, is expected to receive a cut of
$84 million.
Federal Air Marshals, the last line of defense against those who
seek to disrupt domestic flights through criminal or terrorist actions,
will be slashed by $49 million and are expected to remain on a hiring
freeze.
Aviation security as a whole will receive over $270 million in
reductions.
Furthermore, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection is expected to
receive cuts totaling approximately $512 million and its employees
appear to be the hardest hit by these reductions based on the
threatened loss of overtime compensation.
These are not scare tactics. These are real numbers affecting real
people that jeopardize the safety and security of the United States of
America.
It is unfortunate that Congress was not able to reach a compromise
on the debt ceiling.
It is likewise unfortunate that years of haphazard Government
spending sparked by two wars and an uptick in homeland security and
defense-related contracts added to the debt the United States carries.
However, it is fundamentally unfair to send hard-working Federal
workers home on furlough; expect these same hard-working employees to
work overtime without being adequately compensated for doing so; and
implementing hiring freezes resulting in overworked, overstressed
Federal employees to become even more overworked and overstressed with
no relief in sight.
Yet, that is exactly the situation the sequester has created. And
these cuts come on top of Federal pay freezes that have been in place
for almost 2 years.
In addition to its impact on Federal employees, I am deeply
concerned with the affect the sequester will have on security and its
potential to place our Nation at greater risk for a terrorist attack.
This concern goes beyond longer lines at airports and ports of
entries to increased time frames for security clearances, reductions in
cybersecurity personnel and less training for those operating at the
heart of our security apparatus.
There are others who share my concern.
The Director of National Intelligence stated that the sequester is
reminiscent of budget cuts that hampered intelligence operations in the
1990s and its impact will only be noticed when we have a failure.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that: ``In my
personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the
most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration
would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive.''
These men are not crying wolf.
I stand in agreement with the notion that the Secretary overstated
the immediate impact of the sequestration.
Whether these statements were based on information she had at the
time the statements was made or a product of bad planning and
projections by the Department's leadership, the fact is the statements
did not accurately represent what occurred in the immediate aftermath
of the Order being signed as predicted.
We have a choice.
We can spend our time rehashing what happened and what did not
happen compared to what was predicted or we can focus on the best way
to manage the cuts that have now become the law in an effort to
minimize the risk to our security.
I hope that we choose the latter.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the Ranking Member for participating
today, and remind him that I, too, voted no in August 2011 on
the debt ceiling deal because I felt like we could be smarter
as Americans in making the cuts that were going to be
necessary.
So other Members--thank you for being here. Thanks for your
statement. Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have two very distinguished panels of
witnesses before us today on this important topic.
Now for the first panel. Mr. Rafael Borras is under
secretary for management and chief acquisition officer for the
Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Borras oversees management
of the Department of Homeland Security's nearly $60 billion
budget. Mr. Borras is responsible for directing human capital
resources and personnel programs for the Department's
employees, administers control for the Department's information
technology enterprise, and is responsible for oversight of the
Department's facilities, property, equipment, and resources, as
well as the security for personnel information technology
facilities and resources. Mr. Borras has more than 30 years of
management experience, including 20 years in Federal and city
government and 10 years in the private sector.
Mr. Thomas Winkowski is the Deputy Commissioner of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, performing the duties of the
Commissioner. In March 2013, Mr. Winkowski became responsible
for overseeing the daily operations of CBP's 60,000 employees
and managing an operating budget of $11.5 billion. Most
recently, he served as CBP's second-in-command as the acting
chief operating officer since January 2012. Mr. Winkowski began
in the U.S. Customs Service in 1975 as a student. He continued
to serve the agency in various positions, including Customs
inspector, director of the port of Miami, Miami's field
probations director, and most recently as the assistant
commissioner in the Office of Field Operations.
Mr. John Halinski currently serves as a deputy
administrator for TSA, the Transportation Security
Administration. Mr. Halinski joined TSA in 2004, served as
assistant administrator in the Office of Global Strategies
before assuming his role as deputy administrator. As assistant
administrator from 2010 to 2012, Mr. Halinski was responsible
for enhancing international transportation security through
compliance, outreach and engagement and capacity development.
Previously, Mr. Halinski served 25 years in the Marine Corps in
a variety of positions.
Thank you for your service to our Nation, sir.
Mr. Daniel Ragsdale is the deputy director for the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. He is responsible
for an annual budget of almost $6 billion, more than 20,000
employees assigned to more than 400 offices, including 70
international offices and U.S. embassies worldwide. Mr.
Ragsdale is also the agency's chief management officer,
overseeing the Office of Management and Administration. The
Office of Management and Administration directs, plans,
coordinates the core mission, support functions and programs at
ICE, such as finance, information technology, procurement and
human capital, among other areas.
I thank this distinguished panel for being here today. This
is a very important topic. The Chairman will now recognize
Under Secretary Borras to testify.
STATEMENT OF RAFAEL BORRAS, UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT,
MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Borras. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
Members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you to discuss sequestration and the important
planning that has been undertaken to date by the Department of
Homeland Security. I, along with my colleagues, will also
discuss our preparations for potential budget reductions and
the impacts of the sequester.
First, the backdrop. As we well know, we have not had a
full year budget enacted on time since fiscal year 2009, having
operated under 13 continuing resolutions since then.
Furthermore, and excluding the Disaster Relief Fund, the
Department's net discretionary appropriations have decreased by
4 percent over the last 3 years, forcing the Department to
absorb the cost of operational growth while continuing to
respond to the constant homeland security threats and risks
along the border, in the maritime and aviation environment, as
well as an increasing number of natural disasters.
However, in spite of this constant uncertainty, we have
focused on improving our management operations by achieving
over $4 billion in significant reductions in cost avoidances to
administrative and mission support functions over the past
several years to sustain our front-line operations.
As I have noted in my written testimony, sequestration
consists of mandatory, automatic, indiscriminate, across-the-
board cuts of approximately $85 billion throughout the Federal
Government, which must be applied to nearly every program,
project, and activity for the remainder of 2013.
Like other agencies, DHS engaged in on-going planning
activities with the Office of Management and Budget over the
past several months to determine how to operate under
sequestration, keeping in mind our primary responsibility to
execute our core mission areas on behalf of the American
people.
As required by law, our execution of sequestration is
applied as a uniform percentage reduction to all non-exempt
budgetary accounts. The reductions will be implemented equally
across all PPA's within an account.
The Department has been planning for the possibility of
sequestration since the BCA was signed into law in August 2011.
The real challenge in planning for sequestration has been
calculating the baseline upon which to apply the mandatory
cuts.
Beginning in August 2011, we have operated under five
continuing resolutions, with no certainty of what our fiscal
year 2013 appropriation level would be until just 3 weeks ago.
This has created difficulties in developing detailed
implementation strategies for each of our components and 120
PPAs. Even as we approach the mid-point of fiscal year 2013, we
still do not have certainty as to what our final number would
be or what our baseline would be calculated against. For
example, the agreement on fiscal cliff enacted on January 2,
2013, postponed sequestration by 2 months until March 1 and
provided a $24 billion down-payment towards the sequester.
Additionally, in late January, Congress passed the 2013
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, providing $60.4 billion in
supplemental appropriations to assist victims of Hurricane
Sandy, including $12.1 billion for DHS. These actions changed
the sequester amount for all Federal agencies months after the
our planning activities had begun.
The Fiscal Year 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, enacted on March 26, changed our funding
levels once again, requiring additional adjustments to our
planning. Some components received additional funds, which have
provided more flexibility, while others were appropriated less
funding, which has required those components to identify
additional actions to be taken.
I notified all DHS employees in February that the Federal
Government faced the possibility of sequestration and that both
employees and operations could be impacted by these mandated
cuts.
Following the issuance of the sequester order on March 1,
which requires the Department to achieve $3.2 billion in budget
reductions over the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year,
Department head components have begun efforts to reduce
spending for every account.
While our recently-enacted appropriations will somewhat
help DHS to mitigate the impact of sequestration on our
operations and workforce originally projected under the fiscal
year 2000 CR--2013 CR enacted on September 28, 2012, there is
no doubt that these cuts will impact operations in the short
and long term.
Given the substantial and far-reaching cuts mandated by
sequestration, we will continue to do everything we can to
minimize impacts to our core mission and our employees,
consistent with the original priorities in our budget.
The fiscal year 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act includes a requirement for all Federal
departments to provide post-sequestration operation planning 30
days after enactment. We are in the process of responding to
this requirement by April 26.
The Department appreciates the strong support it has
received from the committee over the past 10 years. Once again,
I look forward to the opportunity to answer questions. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and we look
forward to answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Borras, Mr. Winkowski,
Mr. Halinski, and Mr. Ragsdale follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Rafael Borras, Thomas S. Winkowski, John
Halinski, and Daniel H. Ragsdale
April 12, 2013
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the committee: We are
pleased to appear before you to discuss sequestration and the important
planning that has been undertaken to date by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We will also discuss issues surrounding the Budget
Control Act (BCA) and our preparations for potential budget reductions
and the impacts of sequestration.
The sequestration order that the President was required by law to
issue on March 1 requires the Department to achieve $3.2 billion in
budget reductions over the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year.
Sequestration consists of mandatory, automatic, and indiscriminate
across-the-board budget cuts of approximately $85 billion throughout
the Federal Government, which must be applied to nearly every program,
project, and activity (PPA) within an account for the remainder of
fiscal year 2013. Like other agencies, DHS has engaged in on-going
planning activities in consultation with the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) over the past several months to determine how to operate
under sequestration, keeping in mind our primary responsibility to
execute our core mission areas on behalf of the American people. As
required by law, our execution of sequestration is applied as a uniform
percentage reduction to all non-exempt budgetary accounts; the
reductions will be implemented equally across all PPAs within each
account.
As it became more clear that Congress was not going to take action
to address the sequester, on February 26 and 27, leadership from DHS's
Management Directorate provided notifications to all DHS employees that
the Federal Government faced the possibility of sequestration, and that
both employees and operations could be impacted by these mandated cuts.
Following the issuance of the sequestration order on March 1,
Departmental components began prudent steps to reduce spending for
every account. These included the issuance of furlough notifications,
reduction of overtime, hiring freezes, and postponed contract actions
throughout the Department.
Since then, the Department has continued its sequestration
planning. The fiscal year 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, enacted on March 26, changed our funding levels
once again, requiring additional adjustments to our planning. Some
components received additional funds which have provided more leeway in
achieving the required reductions, while others were appropriated less
funding which has required those components to identify additional
actions that can be taken.
While our recently-enacted appropriations will help DHS to
mitigate--to some degree--the impacts of sequestration on our
operations and workforce that were originally projected under the
fiscal year 2013 Continuing Resolution (CR) enacted on September 28,
2012, there is no doubt that these cuts will affect operations in the
short and long term. Lines and wait times at our ports of entry (POEs)
are longer, affecting travel and trade; the take-home pay of the men
and women on the front lines will be reduced; and employees across the
Department as well as the public we serve face uncertainty based on
sudden budgetary reductions that must be met by the end of the year.
The long-term effects of sustained cuts at these levels will result in
reduced operational capacity, breached staffing floors, and economic
impacts to the private sector through reduced and cancelled contracts.
In spite of the substantial and far-reaching cuts mandated by
sequestration, we will continue to do everything we can to minimize
impacts on our core mission and employees, consistent with the
operational priorities in our 2014 budget.
dhs fiscal stewardship
Through administrative efficiencies, cost avoidances, and our
internal budgeting processes, we have been working proactively to
reduce the Department's resource requirements wherever possible. In
fact the Department's fiscal year 2014 budget, submitted to Congress on
April 10, reflects the third consecutive year in which the Department's
overall topline has been reduced.
Through the Department-wide, employee-driven Efficiency Review,
which began in 2009, as well as other cost-saving initiatives, DHS has
identified over $4 billion in cost avoidances and reductions, and
redeployed those funds to mission-critical initiatives across the
Department. For example, in the past, offices at DHS purchased new
computers and servers while excess equipment remained unused in other
areas of the Department. Through component-level efforts to better re-
utilize excess IT equipment, DHS has saved $24 million in taxpayer
money. In addition, DHS previously spent millions of dollars each year
by paying for cell phones and air cards that were not in use. The
Department now conducts annual audits of usage and has saved $23
million to date. Also, DHS has encouraged components to use Government
office space and on-line tools for meetings and conferences instead of
renting private facilities, a change that has saved $11.7 million to
date.
We have used strategic sourcing initiatives to leverage the
purchasing power of the entire Department for items such as language
services, tactical communications services and devices, intelligence
analysis services, and vehicle maintenance services. In fiscal year
2012, we achieved $368 million in savings, and we project $250 million
in savings for fiscal year 2013, subject to sequestration.
In support of the administration's Campaign to Cut Waste, DHS
strengthened conference and travel policies and controls to reduce
travel expenses and ensure conferences are cost-effective and that both
travel and conference attendance is driven by critical mission
requirements. In 2012, DHS issued a new directive that establishes
additional standards for conferences and requires regular reporting on
conference spending, further increasing transparency and
accountability.
In our fiscal year 2014 budget, we identified initiatives that will
result in $1.3 billion in savings from administrative and mission
support areas, including contracts, information technology, travel,
personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing, professional services,
and vehicle management.
In effect, with declining resources, the Department has worked
proactively to eliminate inefficiencies wherever possible and to focus
available resources on supporting front-line mission requirements. We
have a proven, established process to plan and budget; however recent
fiscal uncertainties and the across-the-board nature of sequestration
have affected the Department's ability to plan beyond recent, immediate
budget crises that have occurred.
initial sequestration planning
As you are aware, the BCA was signed into law on August 2, 2011.
The BCA established caps on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2012
through fiscal year 2021. Since enactment of the BCA, the Department
has been planning for the possibility of sequestration. In August 2011,
our Office of General Counsel and the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) provided an initial review of the new statute to become
familiar with its provisions and impacts to the Department.
On September 12, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office released its
report entitled, ``Estimated Impact of Automatic Budget Enforcement
Procedures Specified in the Budget Control Act.'' On the basis of that
analysis, OCFO commenced work with Departmental components to identify
which accounts are included in the Security and Non-Security
Categories, since they would be subject to differing sequester amounts.
On July 31, 2012, OMB provided guidance to Federal agencies that
discussions would commence over the coming months on issues associated
with sequestration. It was recognized then that undertaking
sequestration planning and implementation activities would divert
resources from other important activities and priorities. It was our
hope and expectation that, rather than force the Department to pursue a
course of action that would be disruptive to mission-related
activities, Congress would reach agreement on a deficit reduction
package as an alternative to sequestration.
On September 17, 2012, OMB provided Congress with its Sequestration
Transparency Act report, which identified agency-by-agency the
estimated funding amounts that could be sequestered based on
appropriations enacted for fiscal year 2012, not fiscal year 2013. The
OMB report estimated that DHS would be subject to a 5 percent sequester
and required to absorb approximately $3.2 billion in reductions to its
total budget authority beginning January 2, 2013.
The Department thus began comprehensive planning efforts,
consistent with OMB guidance. A significant challenge remained,
however, in that amounts subject to sequestration could only be
calculated once final fiscal year 2013 funding levels were known. The
fiscal year 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act enacted on September 28,
2012, left the Department operating under a CR until March 27, 2013--a
point beyond the date sequestration was mandated to begin.
For the remainder of 2012, the Department's leadership continued to
examine what courses of action might be necessary to implement
sequestration, including the establishment of uniform procedures for
taking personnel actions such as furloughs, reductions in force (RIFs),
and voluntary early retirements and separations, as well as identifying
contracts which could be re-scoped. The Department's chief financial,
human capital, and procurement officers worked closely together during
this time to ensure proper coordination in developing our sequestration
implementation plans.
In our planning efforts, we were careful to strike a balance to
take prudent, responsible steps toward across-the-board budget
reductions. Our guiding principles have been as follows:
First, we focus on preserving the Department's front-line
operations and other mission-critical activities to the maximum
extent possible.
Second, understanding that DHS is a labor-driven
organization, we strive to avoid and if required, minimize
furloughs to the greatest extent possible. Hiring freezes and
potential furloughs not only have operational impacts on our
core missions but adversely affect employee morale and well-
being.
Unfortunately sequestration in and of itself provides very little
flexibility in how the across-the-board cuts must be applied. Several
types of personnel actions that agencies regularly use to manage their
workforce over the long term are not useful to address the short-term
requirements of sequestration. Implementing DHS-wide voluntary early
retirements and separations entails up-front funding which is not
available under a sequestered budget. The notification and bargaining
processes required for RIFs could not be completed until fiscal year
2014, well after our fiscal year 2013 funding is sequestered.
implementation plan changes
Following the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012
on January 2, 2013, several additional challenges arose for our
sequestration planning.
This legislation postponed sequestration by 2 months, until March
1, and provided a $24 billion down payment that reduced the amount of
sequestration for fiscal year 2013 from $109 billion to $85 billion.
Additionally, in late January, Congress passed the fiscal year 2013
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 113-2) which provides $60.4
billion in supplemental appropriations to assist victims of Hurricane
Sandy, including $12.1 billion for DHS. These actions changed the
sequester amount for all Federal agencies months after our planning
activities had begun. The fiscal year 2013 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act also provided DHS with a new baseline for
fiscal year 2013.
Accordingly, even as our planning for sequestration progressed
throughout 2013, given the actions described above, the amount of the
sequester changed numerous times, creating difficulties in developing
detailed implementation strategies for each of our components.
impacts of the sequestration order on the department
Following are the impacts of sequestration to several of the
Department's front-line components: U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Impacts on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CBP is America's front-line border security agency, the guardians
of our borders, responsible for protecting the United States and the
American people from the entry of dangerous goods and people. With more
than 60,000 employees, CBP has the largest number of uniformed officers
of any Federal law enforcement agency. Its primary mission is keeping
terrorists and their weapons out of the United States. CBP is also
responsible for securing the border and facilitating lawful
international trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws
and regulations. This includes ensuring that all persons and cargo
enter the United States legally and safely through official POEs,
preventing the illegal entry of persons and contraband into the United
States at and between POEs, promoting the safe and efficient flow of
commerce into our country, and enforcing trade and tariff laws and
regulations.
CBP protects approximately 7,000 miles of land borders and 95,000
miles of coastal shoreline. Operating at 329 POEs across the United
States, CBP welcomes almost 1 million travelers by land, sea, and air,
facilitating the flow of goods essential to our economy. In fiscal year
2012, CBP facilitated more than $2.3 trillion in trade and welcomed a
record 98 million air travelers, a 12 percent increase since fiscal
year 2009. CBP also collected $39.4 billion in revenue, a 6 percent
increase over the previous year--illustrating the critical role of CBP
not only with border security, but with economic security and continued
growth. Trade and travel are absolutely vital to our economy, and
according to the U.S. Travel Association, one new American job is
created for every 33 travelers arriving from overseas.
Removing the planned transfer of US-VISIT, CBP's fiscal year 2013
direct appropriation budget request was $10.083 billion, $72 million
less than its fiscal year 2012 appropriation. In order to fund rising
personnel costs within a slightly declining overall budget, CBP
proposed a variety of efficiencies and program reductions and deferred
a number of major acquisitions. At the fiscal year 2013 enacted level
with nearly $600 million in sequestration reductions, CBP's fiscal year
2013 funding level is $309 million less than fiscal year 2012, or about
3 percent less than the previous fiscal year. As a result, CBP has made
further reductions to non-pay costs and discretionary pay costs, such
as awards, overtime, and mission support hiring.
Although the fiscal year 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act provides additional funding for CBP and enables it
to mitigate to some degree the impacts to its workforce, sequestration
still requires more than $600 million in cuts across CBP, affecting
operations in the short and long term. While CBP remains committed to
doing everything it can to minimize risks and mitigate the impact of
sequestration, we have already experienced significant impacts to
cross-border activities.
Reduced CBP Officer (CBPO) overtime availability at our Nation's
ports has resulted in increased wait times for travelers across the
country. International travelers have experienced wait times of up to
several hours to process through Customs and a number of locations have
reported wait times averaging between 120 to 240 minutes, and some as
long as 4 to 4\1/2\ hours. These automatic cuts have occurred against a
backdrop of significant growth in travel and trade in all POE
environments. Air travel at the major gateway airports is up by 4
percent, on top of a 3-year increase of over 12 percent. Land border
travel is up 3.6 percent through the fiscal year to date. Additionally,
cargo volumes have increased in all environments over the past 3 years.
Delays affect the air travel environment, causing missed passenger
connections for both domestic and international flights. Reduced CBPO
overtime availability at our Nation's ports also slows the movement of
goods across the border. Even the smallest increase in wait times at
the borders directly affects our economy. Reduced CBPO overtime
availability will continue to impede CBP's capacity to facilitate and
expedite cargo, adding costs to the supply chain and diminishing our
global competitiveness that is so critical to our economy.
Between the POEs, sequestration has led to significant reductions
in areas like CBP's detainee transportation support contract, which
increases non-law enforcement requirements for front-line Border Patrol
Agents. CBP has also cut operating expenses, including vehicle usage,
affecting Border Patrol's ability to respond to requests from other law
enforcement entities for assistance.
Additionally, reductions in relocation expenses will necessitate
that the Border Patrol postpone promotions to leadership and managerial
positions, requiring less experienced staff to perform the functions of
these critical jobs.
Based on CPB's funding levels as of March 1, the sequester also
necessitated CBP to take steps to achieve a reduction of 21,000 flight
hours for CBP's fleet of 269 aircraft from a level of 69,000 hours to
48,000 hours, impacting CBP's ability to provide critical aerial
surveillance and operational assistance to law enforcement personnel on
the ground. Based on funding provided in the fiscal year 2013
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, CBP will work
to restore flight hours to pre-sequestration levels.
Impacts on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE serves as DHS's principal investigative arm and is the second-
largest investigative agency in the Federal Government.
ICE promotes homeland security and public safety through broad
criminal and civil enforcement of approximately 400 Federal laws
governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. In fiscal
year 2012, ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) initiated over
43,000 new investigations and made more than 32,000 criminal arrests
around the world. During this same time period, we set a new agency
record with the seizure of $774 million in currency and negotiable
instruments, more than double the amount seized during the previous
year, as well as the seizure of 1.5 million pounds of narcotics and
other dangerous drugs and $175 million worth of counterfeit goods.
ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations identifies, apprehends,
and removes criminal and other removable aliens from the United States.
Last year, ICE removed 409,849 illegal immigrants, including 225,000
individuals who had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.
ICE's fiscal year 2013 budget request was $218 million less than
its fiscal year 2012 appropriation, reflecting a variety of planned
efficiencies. At the fiscal year 2013 enacted level with sequestration
applied, ICE's fiscal year 2013 funding level is $417 million less than
fiscal year 2012, or about 7.1 percent less than the previous fiscal
year. As a result, ICE has made adjustments to several program plans
for fiscal year 2013.
After the sequestration order was given, ICE leadership distributed
guidance to all of its employees outlining post-sequestration plans,
including spending controls during this period. Key aspects of ICE's
post-sequestration plan include cuts in the areas of hiring, contracts,
travel, training and conferences, compensatory time and overtime,
vehicle usage, and permanent change of station moves, which will affect
ICE's criminal and civil enforcement missions.
For instance, ICE continues to leave a number of positions unfilled
by not backfilling for attrition.
We expect that that these workforce and operational reductions will
result in fewer cases, arrests, and seizures, and could impact both
interagency and international partnerships. A number of ICE criminal
operations have already been slowed or deferred, and HSI offices are
reducing operational activities within current investigations. For
instance, ICE HSI Special Agents in Charge have had to curtail their
use of informant payments as well as Title III wire intercepts,
investigative tools that allow agents to gain critical information to
dismantle transnational criminal organizations. Finally, HSI offices
have discontinued the use of certain Government-owned vehicles that
require mandatory repairs. As a result, investigative field functions
may be affected, including arrests and seizures of contraband goods and
weapons.
Sequestration could also present significant challenges for ICE's
civil immigration enforcement mission. ICE will continue to manage its
detention population in order to ensure it can operate within the
appropriations level provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2013
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, and in
consideration of reductions required by sequestration. To the extent
that ICE is unable to maintain 34,000 detention beds with the funding
provided, it will focus its detention capabilities on priority and
mandatory detainees, including individuals who pose a danger to
National security or a risk to public safety, including aliens
convicted of crimes, with particular emphasis on violent criminals,
felons, and repeat offenders. ICE will place low-risk, non-mandatory
detainees in lower-cost, parole-like alternatives to detention
programs, which may include electronic monitoring and intensive
supervision. In addition, ICE has postponed indefinitely its Advanced
Tactical Training classes for Fugitive Operation Teams, which target
fugitive aliens who have received a final order of removal from an
immigration judge or who have been previously removed and have re-
entered the United States unlawfully.
ICE will also delay a number of facilities projects. To support its
operations, ICE has more than 600 leased locations throughout the
United States, of which 161 leases are expiring between fiscal years
2013-2015. In many instances, the project delays will result in the
untimely acquisition of new space, resulting in duplicative rent
payments, delaying claim payments to contractors, and additional legal
action from building owners.
ICE will continue to evaluate the recently-enacted appropriations
to determine how best to mitigate the impact of the reduced funding
level on its workforce and operations.
Impacts on the Transportation Security Administration
TSA's fiscal year 2013 budget request was $200 million less than
its fiscal year 2012 appropriation, reflecting a variety of planned
efficiencies. After applying the sequester to its final enacted fiscal
year 2013 appropriation, TSA's fiscal year 2013 funding level is $670
million less than fiscal year 2012, or about 8.8 percent less than the
previous fiscal year.
While the reductions required by sequestration will continue to
have impacts on TSA, the fiscal year 2013 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act provides TSA with additional funding for
Transportation Security Officers, which allows TSA to mitigate to some
degree the impacts on their workforce and operations. TSA will use
these additional funds to maintain its security screening workforce
through prudent management of hiring and controlled overtime. Although
initial projected impacts on wait times are largely mitigated through
the additional funding provided for Transportation Security Officers by
Congress, at reduced levels of personnel and restricted overtime,
travelers may see lines and wait times increase during the busiest
travel periods or required surge operations.
The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) has had a hiring freeze in
place for over a year to manage a planned program adjustment from
$965.8 million in fiscal year 2012 to $929.6 million in fiscal year
2013. Congress further reduced that funding in the full fiscal year
2013 appropriation to $906.9 million, or $858 million under
sequestration, an 11.1 percent cut below fiscal year 2012 levels. The
FAMS mission funding is dominated by personnel, travel, and related
costs. TSA continues to assess the personnel actions and mission
adjustments that will be necessary at the decreased budget level.
Sequestration has also had significant impacts on TSA's information
technology, checkpoint technology, security screening equipment and
infrastructure accounts, totaling a $288 million reduction from fiscal
year 2012 levels. In light of these cuts, information technology (IT)
service-level contracts, refreshment of IT equipment, and maintenance
schedules will be deferred or reduced through the end of the fiscal
year. Furthermore, security equipment technology replacement and
investment plans are being adjusted to reflect the reduced budget
level. While TSA is working to minimize disruption to operational
support and security services to the greatest extent possible, in many
cases equipment also already reached or exceeded its planned service
life.
Finally, TSA has taken action to establish additional controls
across the agency. We have canceled previously-approved conferences,
meetings that require travel, and training activities. This includes
management control training, field oversight and compliance audits,
operational and support program coordination planning and preparedness
training.
conclusion
The FY 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act
includes a requirement to prepare post-sequestration operating plans 30
days after enactment, by April 25. We are in the process of responding
to this requirement.
As discussed earlier, the Department has already taken over $4
billion in significant reductions and cost avoidances to administrative
and mission support functions over the past several years in order to
sustain front-line operations while planning for declining budgets.
However, the statutory requirements for sequestration leave Federal
agencies with very little discretion on how to apply across-the-board
funding cuts. With less than 6 months remaining in fiscal year 2013,
DHS simply cannot absorb the additional reductions mandated by
sequestration without affecting front-line operations and the critical
homeland security capabilities we have built over the past 10 years.
Hurricane Sandy, recent threats surrounding aviation, and the
continued threat of homegrown terrorism demonstrate how we must remain
vigilant and prepared. Threats from terrorism and response and recovery
efforts associated with natural disasters will not diminish because of
budget cuts to DHS.
Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of
making significant reductions to our capabilities without placing our
Nation at risk. Rather, we must continue to prepare for, respond to,
and recover from evolving threats and disasters--and we require
sufficient resources to sustain and adapt our capabilities accordingly.
Thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. The
Department appreciates the strong support it has received from the
committee over the past 10 years. We would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
SEQUESTRATION TIMELINE
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget in Draft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/15/2011.................... Congress enacts fiscal year 2011 Year-
Long Continuing Resolution (CR).
Preliminary work begins on the fiscal
year 2013 budget.
5/2011....................... DHS conducts fiscal year 2011 Mid-Year
Budget Reviews; DHS components complete
fiscal years 2013-2017 Resource
Allocation Proposals (RAPs).
6/2011....................... OMB conducts mid-session review of the
fiscal year 2012 Budget Submission.
7/2011....................... OMB Guidance issued on fiscal year 2013
Budget Formulation; DHS determines
fiscal years 2013-2017 Resource
Allocation Decisions.
8/2/2011..................... 1st potential default of U.S. debt
obligations looms; Congress passes
Budget Control Act.
9/12/2011.................... Congressional Budget Office estimates
fiscal year 2013 sequester to be 7.8%
for Non-Security and 10% for Security
Category discretionary accounts.
9/30/2011.................... Congress passes 1st fiscal year 2012 CR
(for DHS) through 10/4/2011; OMB
provides apportionments.
10/1/2011.................... Fiscal year 2012 begins with Federal
agencies operating under a CR.
10/5/2011.................... Congress passes 2nd fiscal year 2012 CR
(for DHS) through 11/18/2011; OMB
provides apportionments.
11/16/2011................... Congress passes 3rd fiscal year 2012 CR
(for DHS) through 12/17/2011; OMB
provides apportionments.
12/17/2011................... Congress passes 4th fiscal year 2012 CR
(for DHS) through 12/23/2011; OMB
provides apportionments.
12/23/2011................... Congress passes fiscal year 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act; OMB
provides apportionments.
1/15/2012.................... Deadline passes for Congress to enact a
deficit reduction package, triggering
sequestration for fiscal year 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request Pending Congressional Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/13/2012.................... President's fiscal year 2013 budget is
submitted to Congress.
3/2012....................... DHS issues fiscal years 2014-2018
Guidance to Components.
4/2012....................... Preliminary work begins on the fiscal
year 2013 budget.
5/2012....................... DHS conducts fiscal year 2012 Mid-Year
Budget Reviews; DHS components complete
fiscal years 2014-2018 Resource
Allocation Proposals.
6/2012....................... OMB conducts mid-session review of the
fiscal year 2013 Budget Submission.
7/2012....................... OMB Guidance issues on fiscal year 2014
Budget Formulation; DHS determines
fiscal years 2014-2018 Resource
Allocation Decisions.
7/31/2012.................... OMB issues preliminary guidance on
sequestration.
8/15/2012.................... DHS Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
conducts CFO Council Meeting on
sequestration.
9/14/2012.................... OMB releases Sequestration Transparency
Act report detailing for the first time
account-by-account sequesters, based on
fiscal year 2012 funding levels; CFO
conducts CFO Council Meeting.
9/28/2012.................... Congress passes fiscal year 2013 CR
through March 27, 2013; Federal agency
funding remains at fiscal year 2012
funding levels; OMB issues apportionment
guidance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2013 CR (Funding at Fiscal Year 2012 Levels)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/1/2012.................... Fiscal year 2013 begins with Federal
agencies operating under a CR.
10/5/2012.................... CFO conducts CFO Council Meeting on
sequestration.
10/19/2012................... CFO, Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO),
and Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)
conduct joint meeting on possibility of
sequestration.
11/15/2012................... CHCO conducts Human Capital Leadership
Council discussion on sequestration.
12/7/2012.................... CFO conducts CFO Council Meeting on
sequestration.
12/11/2012................... CHCO and CFO conduct joint planning
session on sequestration.
12/21/2012................... DHS Management leadership informs DHS
employees about possibility about
sequestration.
1/2/2013..................... Fiscal Cliff agreement enacted;
Department of Homeland Security shifted
into the Security Category; fiscal year
2013 sequester reduced by $24 billion.
1/4/2013..................... CFO conducts CFO Council Meeting on
sequestration.
1/14/2013.................... OMB issues guidance on fiscal
uncertainties and potential of
sequestration.
1/29/2013.................... Congress passes fiscal year 2013 Disaster
Relief Appropriations Act, providing
$50.7 billion in new appropriations
subject to sequestration.
1/31/2013.................... 2nd potential default on U.S. debt
obligations looms; Congress suspends
Debt Ceiling until 5/19/2013.
2/6/2013..................... DHS Management leadership informs DHS
employees about possibility about
sequestration.
2/25/2013.................... CPO notifies component heads of
contracting authorities of potential
sequestration impacts.
2/27/2013.................... OMB issues guidance on sequestration
planning; DHS Management leadership
sends follow up communication to DHS
employees.
3/1/2013..................... President orders fiscal year 2013
sequester at 5.0% for Non-Security and
7.8% for Security Category accounts,
based on CR funding levels; OMB issues
sequestration and apportionment
guidance.
3/5/2013..................... CPO notifies the DHS contracting
community of potential for contract
actions under sequestration.
3/22/2013.................... DHS issues fiscal years 2015-2019
Guidance to components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Fiscal Year 2013 Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/26/2013.................... Congress passes fiscal year 2013
Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, provides a new
baseline for the remainder of fiscal
year 2013.
4/4/2013..................... OMB issues guidance on sequestration
planning.
4/26/2013.................... Deadline for Federal agencies to provide
plans for operating under sequestration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Duncan. Thank you so much, Under Secretary Borras.
The Chairman will now recognize Mr. Winkowski to testify.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS S. WINKOWSKI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Winkowski. Good morning, Chairman Duncan, Ranking
Member Barber, and Members of the subcommittee.
It is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to discuss sequestration and the
impact it has on our mission to keep terrorists out of our
country, secure our borders, and facilitate the flow of people
and goods into the United States.
CBP protects approximately 7,000 miles of land borders and
95,000 miles of coastal shoreline. We operate at 329 ports of
entry across the United States, welcoming travelers and
facilitating international trade.
In fiscal year 2012, CBP facilitated the processing and
security of 350 million travelers arriving at our Nation's
borders by land, sea, and air. At our airports alone, we have
welcomed a record 98 million air travelers, a 12 million
percent increase since--excuse me--a 12 percent increase since
fiscal year 2009. Last year, CBP also facilitated approximately
$2.4 trillion in trade and collected almost $40 billion of
revenue, a 6 percent increase over the previous year.
Original sequestration guidance in September was that CBP
would have to make budget reductions of more of $950 million in
order to maintain Congressionally-mandated front-line Border
Patrol Agents and CBP Officer staffing floors. CBP developed a
financial plan, which included a wide range of reductions to
both pay and non-pay expenses. With over 70 percent of CBP's
budget dedicated to agency payroll, we face a daunting
challenge in identifying reductions which would not impact
employee paychecks. We were able to identify nearly $110
million in reductions through such actions and implementing a
hiring pause for non-agent and non-officer positions, canceling
most training, reducing contracts and equipment approaches, and
sharply curtailing travel expenses. The remaining sequester
reduction requirement had to be addressed through payroll-
related impact, specifically employee furloughs and overtime
savings, with consideration for overtime reduction given to the
mandatory nature of passenger and cargo inspections at ports of
entry.
DHS fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill, recently enacted
by Congress, increased CBP's budget by about $200 million, with
$98 million of that going specifically to the Border Patrol
account. The increase in CBP budget combined with a lower
sequestration reduction level of $602 million has allowed CBP
to postpone furloughs and deauthorization of administratively
uncontrollable overtime, AUO, while we assess the exact impact
that the bill will have on our operations and our workforce.
While our sequestration reduction level has decreased from
initial guidance, the $602 million in cuts across CBP will
affect operations in the short and long term. Between the ports
of entry, sequestration has led to significant reductions in
areas like CBP's detainee transportation support contract,
which increases non-law-enforcement requirements for front-line
Border Patrol Agents. CBP has also cut operating expenses,
including vehicle usage, affecting Border Patrol's ability to
reduce--to respond to requests from our law enforcement
entities for assistance.
Additionally, reductions in relocation expenses will
necessitate that the Border Patrol postpone promotions to
leadership and managerial positions, requiring less experienced
staff to perform the functions of these critical jobs.
At the ports of entry, reduced CBP Officer overtime
availability at our Nation's ports has increased--has resulted
in increased wait times for travelers across the country.
International travelers have experienced wait times of several
hours. A number of locations have reported wait times averaging
between 120 and 240 minutes, and a few as long as 4 to 4\1/2\
hours.
These automatic cuts are occurring against a backdrop of
significant growth in trade and travel in all ports of entry
environments. Air travel at the major gateway airports is up by
4 percent on top of 3-year increase of over 12 percent. Land
border travel is up 3.6 percent through the fiscal year to
date. Additionally, cargo volumes have increased in all
environments over the past 3 years.
CBP will preserve its highest mission priorities in these
demanding fiscal times and has issued clear guidance on
maintaining priority operations during sequestration with the
following key principles: Our security efforts will remain our
highest priority. We will not allow the denigration of our
primary antiterrorism mission at our ports or between our
ports. We will prioritize core processing and facilitation
operations for both travelers and cargo, and we will continue
to carry out our border operation consistent with all
applicable legal requirements.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to come here today
and I look forward to any questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Winkowski.
The Chairman will now recognize Mr. Halinski to testify.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HALINSKI, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Halinski. Good morning, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member
Barber, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
impact of sequestration on the Transportation Security
Administration's operations.
As you know, the President signed the sequester order on
March 1, as mandated by law, requiring across-the-board budget
cuts at all Federal agencies, including a $3.2 billion cut for
the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the
fiscal year.
TSA is the lead agency for protecting the Nation's
transportation system from terrorist attacks, while ensuring
the freedom of movement for people and commerce. The agency
manages effective and efficient screening and security for all
air passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger planes. It is
also deploys Federal air marshals internationally and
domestically to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts
targeting air carriers, airports, passengers, crews, and other
transportation infrastructure.
Each year, transportation systems protected by TSA
accommodate nearly 640 million aviation passengers, 751 million
passengers traveling on buses, more than 9 billion passenger
trips on mass transit, nearly 800,000 daily shipments of
hazardous material, and more than 140,000 miles of railroad
track, over 4 million miles of public roads, and nearly 2.6
million miles of pipeline.
Regardless of the challenging fiscal landscape before us,
TSA's guiding principle has been and will continue to be to
provide the most effective security in the most efficient
manner. TSA functions as a critical component of our Nation's
counterterrorism efforts, with a dedicated workforce working
around the clock and across the globe to execute our
transportation security responsibilities. Every day, we
interact closely with the public and private-sector
stakeholders in the aviation, freight rail, mass transit,
passenger rail, highway and pipeline sectors to employ an
intelligence-driven, risk-based security approach across all
modes of transportation.
Throughout the sequestration planning efforts, we have been
careful to seek prudent, responsible steps toward across-the-
board budget reductions. Our guiding principles have been two:
No. 1, preserve the Nation, preserve TSA's front-line
operations and other mission-critical activities to the maximum
extent possible; No. 2, take care of our workforce by managing
hiring practices, managing overtime, and through other means.
TSA's fiscal year 2013 budget request was $200 million less
than its fiscal year 2012 appropriate, reflecting a variety of
planned efficiencies. After applying the sequester to its final
enacted fiscal year 2013 appropriation, TSA's fiscal year 2013
funding level is $670 million less than fiscal year 2012, or
about 8.8 percent less than the previous fiscal year.
While the reductions required by sequestration will
continue to impact the Transportation Security Administration,
the recent passage by Congress of the fiscal year 2013
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act provides
TSA with additional funding for transportation security
officers and some other areas. This allows TSA to mitigate the
impact on its operations and workforce.
TSA will use additional funds to maintain its security
screening workforce through prudent management of hiring and
controlled overtime. Our Federal Air Marshal Service has had a
hiring pause in place for more than a year to manage the
planned program adjustment from $965.8 million in fiscal year
2012 to $929.6 million in fiscal year 2013. TSA continues to
assess the personnel actions and mission adjustments that will
be necessary at this decreased budget level.
Sequestration has also had a significant impact on TSA's
information technology, checkpoint technology, security
screening equipment, and infrastructure accounts. TSA is
analyzing and working to minimize any disruption that these
reductions may cause.
Finally, TSA has taken action to establish additional
controls across the agency. We have cancelled conferences as
well as noncritical, mission-essential travel and training
activities. In the face of sequestration, TSA will continue
implementing an intelligence-driven, risk-based approach to
security across the transportation modes, while seeking
operational and management efficiencies across the
organization.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you so much for your statement, Mr.
Halinski.
The Chairman will now recognize Mr. Ragsdale for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL H. RAGSDALE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Ragsdale. Good morning, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member
Barber, Members--distinguished Members of the subcommittee. It
is my honor to testify in front of you today about U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
As you may know, ICE is DHS' principal investigative arm
and is the second-largest investigative agency in the Federal
Government. ICE's broad mission covers border security,
customs, trade, and immigration.
Last year, ICE homeland security investigations, or HSI,
initiated over 43,000 new investigations and made more than
32,000 criminal arrests, received a record $774 million, 1.5
million pounds of narcotics, and more than $175 million in
counterfeit goods.
We had similar successes in our enforce and removal
operations, or ERO. Last year, we removed over 400,000 illegal
immigrants, and over 55 percent, or 225,000, have been
convicted of crimes.
That said, sequestration has required an almost $300
million reduction to these programs that saw these record
successes. For instance, sequestration could present
significant challenges to ICE's enforcement efforts. Congress
has mandated that ICE maintain an average daily population of
34,000. Complying with this mandate will be extremely difficult
in light of the broad sequestration cuts.
In order to meet sequestration targets, ICE will focus its
limited resources on the detention of detainees subject to
mandatory detention, including recent border-crossers and
priority cases. ICE will place low-risk mandatory detainees in
lower-cost alternatives to detention.
ICE also continues to leave a number of positions unfilled
by not filling based on attrition. This involves leaving some
key leadership positions around the agency unfilled.
In addition, the need to curtail the use of critical
investigative techniques will ultimately lead to fewer arrests
and seizures. To put this into perspective, just a week ago,
ICE arrested 113 individuals in Connecticut and Puerto Rico.
These targets were associated with a Latin King street gang and
involved money laundering, violent crimes, and the
transportation of a great deal of heroin and cocaine from the
Caribbean to Connecticut. This case could only have been
completed with the aid of 23 wiretaps of the 800 wiretaps we
used last year. These critical tools that are essential to our
enforcement mission will have to be restricted under
sequestration.
Simply put, fiscal uncertainty has led to the hard reality
that could have a significant effect on our investigative and
enforcement missions. Complying with the sequestration order
could mean fewer investigations into human trafficking,
narcotics, violent crime, child exploitation, contraband
smuggling, and counterproliferation, and a host of other crimes
that affect public safety.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today
and look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you so much, Mr. Ragsdale.
Now, the Chairman will recognize himself for 5 minutes.
I must first express the frustration of the American people
and myself over the release of 2,000 detainees by ICE. The
decision was made before sequestration kicked in. We talked
about the hope that was--of the Department that sequestration
wouldn't happen, and this happened before the final decision to
allow sequestration to go in place.
So according to the information that DHS provided to my
subcommittee staff, the Department's leadership has been fully
engaged in preparing budgets and operating plans. Since the
Department's leadership has been fully engaged in preparing
budgets and operating plans, was Secretary Napolitano not also
fully engaged in the plan to release 2,000 criminal aliens,
which is greater than 5 percent of the 35,000 that ICE claimed
it had in detention?
Mr. Ragsdale, was she not involved in that decision?
Mr. Ragsdale. She was not involved in that decision.
Mr. Duncan. Who made the decision?
Mr. Ragsdale. Myself and Director Morton.
Mr. Duncan. So you just arbitrarily decided that is how you
are going to apply sequestration?
Mr. Ragsdale. It actually had very little to do with
sequestration. It actually was a much larger function of the
expiration of the continuing resolution that ended at the end
of March. Our ADP had been very high earlier in the year to
meet all the operational needs. It had been over $36,000. Also,
I will note that last year ICE had almost 477,000 book-in and
book-outs.
This represented what I will say is normal detention
population management. The timing was unfortunate. Certainly
communication with the Hill certainly could have been better,
but we were certainly doing nothing other than trying to live
within our means by releasing those detainees.
Mr. Duncan. Well, not the line that I want to go down
today, but I represent 700,000 people. I would say that my
frustration crosses demographics. It crosses party affiliation.
These are Americans that are worried about criminal aliens and
illegals being detained by the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, held for a reason, and just released as a way to
apply sequestration cuts. So my frustration is duly noted on
behalf of my constituents.
Mr. Borras, when we sat down in my office, and I took to
heart your words about how sequestration was going to be
applied and had to be applied at that time across all the
different subagencies within DHS equally, but the question I
have for you is really the planning of how to apply those
sequestering cuts, because what I understand is that each line
item in the budget, each categorical has some flexibility
within that account line to move moneys around. I am not
talking about, you know, let us say ICE gets whatever their
budget number is, but within that total budget number, there is
some flexibility on how they can spend those dollars. Is that
not correct?
Mr. Borras. Mr. Chairman, a couple things on the planning
for sequestration. I do appreciate that time that we spent to
talk about sequestration. So we have 120 PPAs in the
Department. So you are right. Each one of those PPAs has to
apply the reduction mandated by the sequester equally.
The challenge for us, as I stated earlier, has been that
that number changed since 2011 to the present, where first when
we were doing what I would call scenario planning, back in
August, just with the idea that sequester could happen, we were
planning based on numbers we got from CBO, looking at almost a
10 percent reduction on each one of our PPOs. Now, it seems
like it just would be simple math, PPA, 10 percent reduction,
but there is an opportunity in certain accounts to make some
adjustments.
Then the number changed as we were faced with coming closer
to January 1, where it was approximately 7.8 percent reduction.
Then, as I stated, when we got to March 26, of course, that
number is about a 5 percent reduction.
So the three things I was looking for from Day 1 is: What
is my baseline? How much time am I going to have to be able to
implement it, because that is very important, how much time am
I going to have? Ultimately what is the final sequester amount?
It varies throughout all of the components.
Now, I received a lot of questions over the last several
weeks about, well, couldn't we have made those adjustments back
in 2011 to prepare for sequestration? As this committee well
knows, about 41 percent of the Department's budget is what we
call 1-year money. So any savings that we would accrue in 2011
would not carryover into 2012 and certainly not into 2013.
About 19 percent of the Department's budget is what they call
2-year money. TSA is largely 2-year money.
So every department, every component has different
flexibilities based on the way the appropriation law is
written. So what I--what I want to convey in all seriousness is
the complexity of trying to take a specific number, a
percentage account to a PPA and timing how much time will I
have to implement it. Will I have 5 months, 6 months, 7 months?
How much time will I have to plan? How much time will I have to
provide guidance to all these component agencies so that they
can begin to prepare?
We began our planning in earnest in the fall, facing the
January 1 deadline. We got good guidance from OMB. We began to
have meetings and provide account structure. But every account
had to be looked differently. I think what you will find when
we talk a little bit about CBP, for example, is that their
largest PPA, their largest account is all salaries and
expenses, so the reduction, the flexibility to say, I am going
to do something other than people, was not present since most
of their money is in salary and expense accounts.
We can have a whole hearing just on sort of the dynamics of
sequester and the application of it, but I want to assure you,
Mr. Chairman, and the Members of this committee, that we worked
very, very hard to try to figure out as best as possible, but
we never had a certainty as to, again, what the baseline would
be, what the sequester amount would be, and how much time we
would have to implement sequester.
Mr. Duncan. Right. Well, I understand some of the
flexibility, some of the frustration that you must have had,
but you had to look at a divided Government and a divided
Congress and plan for a worst-case scenario and make those
plans, but according to your statement, it was recognized that
then undertaking sequestration planning and implementation
activities would divert resources from other important
activities and priorities. It was our hope and expectation than
rather than force the Department to pursue a course of action
that would be disruptive to mission-related activities,
Congress would reach an agreement on deficit reduction package
as an alternative to sequestration.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you have 225,000
employees in the Department of Homeland Security: 225,000. You
couldn't find a working group within that number to focus on,
in each division, to focus on how we were going to apply
sequestration cuts. So $60 billion budget. We are talking about
5 percent; 7 percent is worst-case scenario, possibly. It just
seems to me that proper management is to look at your worst-
case scenario, what are we facing, how are we going to
implement those cuts, and then, if it is not that much, then we
have a windfall, so to speak. That is how I think the private
sector applies that type of situation if they see a change in
sales or income from year to year, and I think we want to
address some of that.
My time is up, so I am going to yield to the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Barber. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had some questions for Mr. Winkowski, hopefully with time
for others. Thank you very much for coming to my office this
week. It was a very informative discussion. I appreciated
seeing you in Arizona----
Mr. Winkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Barber [continuing]. Last week with the Secretary, and
I certainly want to thank you for your many years of service to
the country, and now you have this wonderful new assignment. I
wish you well with that.
As you know, Border Patrol Agents work in three 10-hour
shifts, including 2 hours of overtime per agent per day. There
are many instances when even more overtime is necessary as the
agent is in the process of tracking or pursuing illegal
crossings or doing the necessary paperwork related to
apprehensions. Despite the necessity of overtime, CBP,
initially at least, has targeted Border Patrol Agent overtime
pay as one of the sequestration-related cuts.
Now, let us be clear about this. When most Americans think
of overtime, they think, oh, that is something that you can
just approve or not approve, but the staffing model that is in
place for Border Patrol Agents includes 2 hours per shift.
Really the reason that is in there is because it is necessary
in order to do the job.
So, given that that is the case, I appreciate that DHS has
delayed implementation of these cuts, but how, going forward,
Mr. Winkowski, does CBP intend to address the overtime since it
has been built into the staffing model, and obviously, the
Department believed it was critical to getting the job done?
Mr. Winkowski. Well, I think there is a couple of things
that we have to do, is, you know, we need to continue to scrub
the budget here, and that is what we are doing. We have a plan
that is due up to the Hill, the Department does, on our
expenditure plan addressing the areas of reprogramming that we
need. The budget that we have got did have, as I mentioned in
my oral statement, had $98 million for Border Patrol. That
money has been put into the premium pay part for Border Patrol.
So we need to continue to look at ways in which we can
better align the workforce with the workload. I think we need
to provide better oversight. But most importantly, I think the
issue that we really need to come to grasp with is a different
type of overtime system. When you look at AUO, AUO is a system
that is very, very difficult to--difficult to manage. We have
been working with in--several years ago, working with Congress
and others to look at a system that emulates more what the
investigators get, the law enforcement availability pay, which
is good for the employees, but also from the standpoint of
building that overtime feature, that 25 percent, right into the
salary.
So I think there are a number of options out there, but
kind of the bottom line here is we need to really look at, you
know, are we spending that AUO money and that premium pay in
the most fiscally sound way. So, for example, some of the
things that we are faced with that were done, putting different
shifts on; instead of having three shifts, having four shifts,
to begin that process of better managing our AUO, providing
more oversight.
So I think the combination of looking for additional
resources and funding, looking at really kind of transforming,
if you will, the overtime system that our Border Patrol Agents
have, coupled with more oversight and really workforce
alignment is really kind of the path forward.
Mr. Barber. Let me just explore that a little further. When
I think about those 10 hours that each agent is assigned when
they go on a shift, I know that a lot of that has to do with
getting to the area where they are going to change shift with
somebody else. We know that the cartels are watching everything
we do.
Mr. Winkowski. Right.
Mr. Barber. They have scouts and they have other ways of
finding out when we have that gap, if you will, in coverage at
the border. So the overtime is partly because we want to make
sure that we have a seamless transition from one shift to the
other. We have agents who go from their Border Patrol station
to their field operation. This, as you well know, is stating
the obvious. This is not an office job.
Mr. Winkowski. Yeah.
Mr. Barber. This is a job that puts people into mountains,
into canyons, on the desert, very rugged conditions.
Mr. Winkowski. Yeah.
Mr. Barber. Isn't that overtime--we call it overtime. I
almost have to say it is normal duty. Isn't that essential to
getting the job done?
Mr. Winkowski. Absolutely. I am not suggesting that we
implement a system that would have gaps. There are ways in
which you can better schedule your agents to relieve that
particular person that is in the sky tower, so you don't have
those kinds of gaps. Those are the kinds of things that I have
asked Chief Fisher to look at, and we have made some changes
with additional shifts, but certainly I am not a proponent of
having gaps while you are changing shifts.
Mr. Barber. Let me move to a different area that is under
your responsibility as well. I am very concerned, obviously,
about the ability of our Border Patrol Agents to do their job.
When I think about the people I represent, I met last week with
people in cities along the border. I met with Border Patrol
Agents, with ranchers, with mayors and council, with the faith
community. I really wanted to get everyone's input on what they
saw going on and what sequester would likely do. So I am trying
to make sure all of the people who are likely to be involved
are talking to me. I have also spoken at length with people who
are staffing the ports, and I want to turn to that question
before my time is up.
We have to make sure, and I know you would agree with this,
that we expedite the flow of legal commercial traffic,
tourists, trucks that bring produce and other goods into our
country, and we already are experiencing wait times at our
ports of entry. What is the Department's plan to ensure that we
not degrade what is already a challenging situation and that we
have sufficient staffing at the ports of entry to get that job
done?
Mr. Winkowski. Yeah. Thank you for that question. I think
there is a number of things, and one thing is very timely. The
President's budget, that was sent up to the Hill a few days
ago, requests 1,600 additional CBPOs, Customs and Border
Protection Officers out of appropriations, and another 1,877
that would be funded out of changes to the user fees.
This is all driven from a workload staffing model that we
have developed in CBP, particularly the field operations. The
last 4 years, I think we have worked very, very hard and got
the right science, the right statisticians in, so we can go
into each individual port and say these are the numbers of
people and the types of people that we need in to run that
particular port of entry.
So we are real excited about the potential here with the
fiscal year 2014 budget because we need to fill the booths. The
problem is, we don't have enough resources to fill all of the
booths during peak times.
The other problem that we are facing, quite frankly, right
now is reduction in overtime. That is why we are seeing these
peaks. Just when you look at Mariposa, things that normally
took us 15, 20 minutes to do now are up to 120 minutes. That is
not good. That is not good for our cargo environment, and I
don't need to tell you the importance of Mariposa and the
produce in there.
So with the President's budget, with us really looking
through how do we transform the way we do business, I think
that combination will get us on the right track, but certainly
the President's fiscal year 2014 budget is a real game-changer
for us.
Mr. Barber. Mr. Chairman, just a closing comment. We have
talked about the security of the Nation, we have talked about
commercial traffic, both of which are vital to our country, I
believe. I met over the last couple of weeks with about 150,
160 Border Patrol Agents and their spouses and their children.
I wanted to hear from them beyond what we know is going to
impact on our border security and our port of entry staffing, I
wanted to hear from them what this means. It is devastating. No
family in this country could withstand that kind of a reduction
in income just like that. The morale of the agents and the
morale of their families is deeply affected by these ideas.
There is a great deal of uncertainty. We have to make sure that
we know as quickly as possible how much of this we can restore
and restore as much of it as we possibly can.
So thank you very much for your response to my questions.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the Ranking Member for his questions.
Now the Chairman will recognize the Ranking Member of the
full committee, Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ragsdale, ICE has yet to reach a final determination on
whether you will furlough personnel, as I understand it. Is
that still pretty much where we are?
Mr. Ragsdale. At this point we are not planning on
furloughs, but until the sequestration plan is final, we cannot
say for certain.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. Well, so your testimony would be that
furloughs would not impact your ability to apprehend
individuals if you decide to go in that direction?
Mr. Ragsdale. What I can say is this: I cannot give a 100
percent guarantee that ICE will not face furloughs as we go
through sequestration. We are not, as part of our planning
process for sequestration, we are not planning to furlough
employees at this time.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Back, Mr. Winkowski, you know, when I talk to CBP
employees, a lot of them have factored in overtime in how they,
you know, make decisions. What would the reduction in overtime
do for morale of our men and women along our Northern and
Southern Border?
Mr. Winkowski. It is really in many ways devastating, kind
of going back to Mr. Barber's closing statement. At one time
many, many years ago, I was one of those people earning
overtime, and I try to put myself in their shoes today, and I
think I can do that pretty effectively to understand really the
impact. The fact of the matter is that people do depend on this
to pay mortgages, to put the kids through school, all the
necessities of life. This is a dark cloud, in my view, hanging
over our head.
You know, I agree that we need to get an answer out there,
but we need to do it smartly. We need to make sure as we
continue to drill down the budget and look at some of these
important gaps that we have and see if we can fill those gaps
with existing funding, that we need to do it--we need to do it
smartly. That is going to be, quite honestly, very difficult to
do.
So we continue to work real hard on that. You know, the
whole idea of having to furlough our men and women, the whole
idea of reducing their paycheck is something that none of us
want to see happen.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Halinski, although TSA has maintained that TSA, TSO
will not be furloughed, will there be a reduction or
elimination of the overtime?
Mr. Halinski. Sir, we are looking at that, and we look at
that every day. What we are trying to do is through management
of the hiring process, and through management of the overtime
when it is mission-critical, we are looking at trying to
maintain the level that we have. But it is something we review
every day, and we are working, because we want to make sure we
accomplish our mission and at the same time take care of our
workforce.
So it is very cognizant on all of our employees, and we
believe that through managing our hiring process at a certain
level, paying attention to attrition, looking at the busiest
airports and adjusting based on that fact, we will be able to
continue moving forward with that process as well as looking at
the overtime, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I am a little concerned, to be honest
with you, that TSA has the highest turnover rate in DHS among
TSOs. With that kind of turnover rate and the ability not to
bring people on and train them, I am concerned that at some
point we will hit a critical point where we will compromise
security. Is that a concern of yours?
Mr. Halinski. Yes, sir, it is. It is one of the things I am
talking about with managed hiring, sir, and I think it was
alluded to in earlier testimony. It is the fact that we do
still have announcements out there. We are hiring to a certain
percentage because we factor in what our attrition rate is on a
monthly basis. We have to maintain a certain percentage in
order to accomplish that mission. So what we look at are those
busiest airports, what the attrition rates are in specific
airports, and we will hire to maintain a certain percentage of
the workforce to maintain and be able to sustain the mission.
Mr. Thompson. Well, and I, just for the record, want to
compliment the Chairman on voting against the Budget Control
Act. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I am glad it
didn't make a whole lot of sense to him. We can cut it, but the
way we are going about it does not allow for maximum
efficiency. However, it is the law, and we all have to abide by
the law. So I understand you gentlemen have a very difficult
task, but we could have done it smarter, and obviously more
efficiently.
I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the Ranking Member for your
participation, very valuable.
The Chairman will now recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
members of the panel, for coming in and testifying, and thank
you for the work you are doing at the agency.
I would like to ask a question here that I would like to
maybe start with Mr. Borras and go down the line.
Did any of you receive any memorandum or talking points, or
emails or anything or any other type of communication from
either the White House Office of Management and Budget, the
Secretary's office on how you were to be communicating about
the impact of the sequester on your respective subcomponents?
Mr. Borras. That would be a no.
Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Winkowski.
Mr. Winkowski. Not that I recall, no.
Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Halinski.
Mr. Halinski. No, sir.
Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Ragsdale.
Mr. Ragsdale. No, sir.
Mr. Rothfus. Director Ragsdale, are you aware of any
communications between yourself or Director Morton and anyone
in the Secretary's office or the White House prior to the
release of the 2,000 detainees?
Mr. Ragsdale. Certainly not myself and the White House, and
certainly not myself and the Secretary's office.
Mr. Rothfus. Are you aware of any communications between
the Director's office and----
Mr. Ragsdale. I am not aware of that. But what I would like
to simply say is, you know, we had career law enforcement folks
making those decisions in consultation with the Chief Financial
Officer. Those were decisions that were made for solely fiscal
reasons and that is it.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you.
Commissioner Winkowski, why was the decision made to give
out furlough notices to more than 60,000 CBP employees,
including 42,000 Border Patrol Agents, before determining your
actual policy?
Mr. Winkowski. Now, we were working off of a whole
different set of numbers than we are today. We are unionized.
We have to give our employees advanced notification. We were
moving forward as that being our number, and we needed to make
sure that we had everybody on notice that we may have to do
furloughs.
Fortunately, it hasn't come to that, but that was the right
and prudent thing to do.
Mr. Rothfus. Secretary Borras, in spite of, you know, cuts
to budgets as a result of the sequester, I am hearing a lot
from my constituents and concerns about the Department of
Homeland Security's plan to purchase $1.6 billion rounds of
ammunition, including thousands of rounds of hollow-point
bullets.
In response, DHS has explained that these purchases are
part of its larger strategic sourcing program. Can you explain
that program in a little bit more detail, please?
Mr. Borras. Yes, I would be happy to. First, maybe let me
say something just very briefly about strategic sourcing
because we apply it not just to the purchase of ammunition, but
scores and scores of goods that we purchase for the Department
have been strategically sourced.
Mr. Rothfus. Can you give me an idea of what type of goods
those might be?
Mr. Borras. Well, in addition to ammunition, of course,
everything from paper, computer equipment, pencils, and paper.
In fact, we have actually matured our strategic sourcing
program, and we are also now beginning to acquire not just what
I would call the typical kind of goods, computers and printers
and paper, but we are also doing things like handheld radiation
equipment, which is purchased by CBP, by FEMA, and other parts
of not only DHS, but other parts of the Federal Government. We
are now facilitating strategic sourcing buy for that equipment
to be able to get lower prices and leverage that buying power,
certainly around the Department, other parts of the Federal
agencies.
Mr. Rothfus. Has the Department done this type of strategic
sourcing before with respect to ammunition?
Mr. Borras. We have been buying ammunition strategically
source, I believe, since 2006 or 2007. But it is not an
uncommon approach to buying ammunition. Again, we leverage the
buying power.
A word about the volume. I know a lot of people say we are
buying 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition. I don't want to get
too technical here, but basically we use contract vehicles,
which are called indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity. What
these are is you set a ceiling. I plan to buy over a period of
time as much as X amount of goods and you buy it as needed.
The reality is, over the last several years, our buying per
year has been pretty consistent, about 120 million rounds, and
that has not changed. Has not gone up much; has not gone down
much. So we don't buy 1.8 billion rounds all at once. We may
never exhaust that ceiling of the contract. It depends on our
usage both for training and other operational needs.
But no, this is a very common technique. The pricing, quite
frankly, I think relative to retail price, is quite
significant. I think an 80 percent reduction or so. I can get
you that specific number. But it is a tremendous reduction from
the price.
That is what I think you expect us to do. We are applying
these procurement principles across all different areas,
whether it is vehicles, whether it is uniforms for our
officers. It is a very common practice.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank the gentleman. Just for the record, we
have asked GAO to do an audit of the ammo purchases and to get
to the truth. That is the most I have heard from DHS on the
subject since it all came about.
The Chairman will now recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Halinski, you know, I represent New Jersey's 10th
Congressional district, which includes the Newark Liberty
Airport, and so airport security is particularly a concern of
mine. With sequestration well in place, TSA has stressed that
it will not mandate furloughs for its TSOs, but rather
implement a hiring freeze to comply with sequestration budget
levels. But with that hiring freeze in place, it is estimated
that more than 1,000 TSO vacancies could result by Memorial Day
weekend, and that is right before the biggest--one of the
biggest travel seasons that we know.
So knowing that, how do you believe that this hiring freeze
and the rapid reduction in personnel will affect passenger wait
times, the flow of commerce, and most importantly safety at our
airports? What is being done to make up for the expected loss
of 1,000 TSOs?
Mr. Halinski. Yes, sir. Thank you for the opportunity to
clarify that, sir. I would like to go back to what my
colleagues here at the table said and what I said, is that when
we looked at the sequester, it was a planning process, at least
in TSA, from worst case to best case and everything in-
between--talk of furlough, talk of hiring freeze--because,
quite frankly, the numbers that we faced changed on a regular
basis. Other factors changed on a regular basis. When we
planned, we were planning for a worst-case scenario.
Quite frankly, now, when I am talking about managed hiring
practices, what we are trying to look at is to preclude hiring
freezes totally across the board for TSOs. We have a percentage
that we believe will accomplish the mission at each of these
airports. We are looking critically at each airport,
specifically our CAT X airports, our CAT I airports. What do we
have to do, and how many do we have to hire to maintain that
percentage to accomplish that mission?
The term hiring freeze right now, I would say, has evolved
into what we are calling a managed hiring process where we know
what the percentage is we need to accomplish that mission. That
is why we do have announcements out. That is why we are
continuing to judiciously hire TSOs, and you will see that they
are at critical nodes and it is based on attrition. Because
what we have attrition in one airport is not the same as we
might have in another part of the country. So we are trying to
analyze where those rates are dropping and hire to those rates,
sir, to cover that and be able to accomplish the mission.
Mr. Payne. All right, then let me follow up. At Newark
Liberty, specifically, what are your attrition rates at an
airport such as that, and do you know?
Mr. Halinski. I don't know for Newark right off the top of
my head. I think overall we look at about 8 percent per month
across the board, and that is what we are hiring at. The
percentage that we are trying to look at is not 100 percent,
but we are looking at a percentage near that figure. I would be
hesitant to say that in an open forum, exactly what the
percentage is. I would gladly tell you off-line, sir, what that
percentage is, but it is the percentage that we believe will
accomplish the mission and be effective for security at that
airport, sir.
Mr. Payne. Okay. So the expected loss of 1,000 is in the
ballpark or----
Mr. Halinski. Sir, I couldn't tell you at that specific
airport. I could tell you that we factor in attrition across
the board at each airport, and when we see the attrition rates,
we hire to adjust and make sure that the percentage is covered
to the percentage, the line that we have set that we think will
be the most effective at that airport. That is across the
board. Our planning model cuts across all 450 airports in the
country, sir, Federalized airports.
Mr. Payne. All right, thank you.
Mr. Borras, good morning.
As you know, the State of New Jersey was hit hard by
Hurricane Sandy. Back in February the Secretary said that the
Disaster Relief Fund would be reduced by over $1 billion
because of the sequestration. Last month I heard rumors that
the Disaster Relief Fund is running out of money, but FEMA said
that it would have adequate funding for the fiscal year. In the
interim, we passed a spending bill for this year.
So, Mr. Borras, what should I tell the people of New Jersey
with respect to FEMA recovery efforts in New Jersey now that
sequestration has taken effect? Will recovery be slower?
Mr. Borras. Well, good morning to you, Congressman, and
thank you for that question.
Let me give you a couple of pieces of information that I
think would assuage the concerns of the residents of New
Jersey, which I spent about a third of my life living in New
Jersey as well, and at one point you were my Congressman.
The DRF is reduced as a result of sequestration, about a
$941 million reduction in the DRF. That sounds like a lot of
money; it is a lot of money. What I need to tell you is that
the current balance in the Disaster Relief Fund is about $13.8
billion. So I see no opportunity in the near term, certainly,
and we believe for the balance of the year, that we would
exhaust the funds in the Disaster Relief Fund--of course
assuming that we have no disaster that is the equivalent of
Sandy or Katrina, et cetera.
FEMA is looking at that very carefully. They do a very good
job of monitoring the balances in the Disaster Relief Fund.
Again, absent an unusual number of natural disasters, we
believe at present, based on the amount in the Disaster Relief
Fund, that the relief efforts will continue as planned.
Mr. Payne. Okay. You know----
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Duncan. The Chairman will now recognize the gentleman
from Montana, Mr. Daines, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, my background prior to serving in Congress was
all in the private sector, and I appreciate and applaud the
efforts you all do every day to try to find ways to do more
with less in these ever-increasing times of fiscal challenges.
I have worked in a Fortune 20 company. I have worked in a small
family construction business. I was part of a start-up
technology business that grew to be one of our largest
employers in my hometown, in fact. But I also have dealt with
the challenges of having to work with budgets, and I am just
struck by this term, you know, sequestration here in Washington
as this frightening word. Granted there are better ways to
reduce spending, perhaps, than this blunt-force instrument of
sequestration, assuming we had a priority-based approach.
But I would humbly submit that a 5 percent kind-of
reduction is a trim, not a major haircut. At least if you talk
to the folks back in Montana, they are used to having to deal
with much larger reductions in spending to find ways to make
the month balance out. Businesses have to deal with this all
the time. Five percent, it is pretty par for the course.
When we start getting into 10, 20, 30 percent kind-of cuts,
that is usually when it gets pretty tough. But oftentimes
American businesses will find ways, most of the time to do it,
or else they go out of business. I was just concerned by the
comment from Secretary Napolitano in her February 14 testimony
before the Senate committee when she said, no amount of
planning can mitigate the negative effects of sequestration.
I think better is possible. I think it also depends upon
leadership, to have the right attitude to move in and say, you
know, we have got to find a way to do better.
I also have learned that sometimes our employees are our
best sources of ideas from the grassroots up, oftentimes better
than top-down-driven reductions. My grandmother was a civil
servant for many, many years in the Federal Government. She
worked very, very hard. So this is in no way talking about how
hard our Federal employees work.
I think they have got some great ideas, and in fact, we
heard about one potentially out in Montana. Mr. Winkowski, I am
grateful that you have been out to Montana, Big Sky Country. We
share that great big Northern Border with Canada, over 700
miles wide, and there is a lot of dirt between the telephone
poles, we say out there, on those lonely nights. But we
actually had some input from some of the good folks that work
in your organization, which they are great, truly, and they
were looking at some ideas of moving towards an alternate work
schedule as a way perhaps to save money.
You know, the best part about it, you meet these civil
servants, they are looking for ways here. They know that they
have got to find ways to do it better because their job is
going to be on the line here with budget austerity. They have
suggested some ways they can save money and ease work
schedules, the classic win/win for the employee, as well as for
the employer.
Let me talk a little about what you have seen with these
AWS proposals, because some of the folks back home say it is
not getting up high enough, and perhaps you have an answer we
can work together on that.
Mr. Winkowski. We have had AWS, alternate work schedules,
throughout CBP for many years, particularly in more of the desk
type-of jobs, our import specialists, our mission support
specialists. It has been the last few years that we have gone
forward at our ports of entry. We have been able to save a lot
of money.
The complexities of the ports of entry is when you have a
work schedule, an AWS, whether it is 5, 4, 9, or four 10-hour
workdays in a week, you have got to have predictability in what
you do at your job. So that is, you know, it is better suited
for those individuals that have the desk job, the mission
support job, the import specialist-type job. It gets a little
more complicated for our Customs and Border Protection Officers
because of the ebb and flow of traffic. We are there to serve
the trade community. We are there to serve the traveling
public.
But we have come to grips with that, and working with our
employees in a number of locations we have, in fact, at
airports and land borders, have put in alternate work
schedules, which, to your point, Congressman, have saved us
money. Still it has not deteriorated the service to the trade
and to the traveling public.
Some of the challenges you have with AWS, particularly in
the smaller ports, and I don't know if you are talking the Port
of Raymond.
Mr. Daines. Right.
Mr. Winkowski. It is a smaller port. That gets a little
more complicated. Then you have the seasonal, you know, in the
season, May through September, they go and service some of the
other temporary ports out there.
My understanding is, is that we have sat down with the
union to negotiate an AWS schedule. Raymond had lost a couple
people which thus made it more difficult for us to put AWS in.
We are going back to sit down with the union to see if we can
come up with an agreement on an AWS. I am a big proponent of
it. We just need to make sure that it doesn't cost us a lot
more money and it doesn't deteriorate the service aspect of it.
Mr. Daines. Okay, and I know I am out of time. I would
encourage that engagement with the Port of Raymond. They have
got some employees up there I think they have some great ideas
and I appreciate you listening to them. Thank you.
Mr. Winkowski. Yeah.
Mr. Duncan. Thank the gentleman. The Chairman will now
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. O'Rourke, for 5
minutes.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
members of the panel and the men and women who work in the
agencies that you represent for the work that all of you do,
work that is critical in ensuring that El Paso remains the
country's safest city; work that is important in protecting and
enhancing our way of life as one of the world's largest
binational communities, and absolutely work that is absolutely
critical to protecting the economy. In the community that I
represent, tens of thousands of jobs that depend on the flow of
people and trade, legitimate flow that is crossing our ports of
entry.
But I also want to provide some broader context in that the
trade, especially that crosses through our ports of entry, 20
percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade, is critical to supporting
more than 6 million jobs here in the United States.
We were looking at the statistics for the States that have
representation on this committee. In Montana, you have more
than 20,000 jobs dependent on that; in North Carolina, over
180,000; in Pennsylvania, almost 250,000; Georgia, almost
200,000; South Carolina, 85,000; Arizona, 100,000; Mississippi,
50,000; New Jersey, almost 200,000; and in Texas well over
400,000.
So realizing our local critical interests, understanding
the important role that we play in the National economy, our
community, which may not understand everything involved in the
Budget Control Act decision--I wasn't there to vote for or
against it back in 2011--may not understand why and how the
ports are staffed the way they are.
We, one of the poorest communities in the United States,
have agreed to tax ourselves and add additional resources to
your budget to work cooperatively to ensure that we get more
people and shoppers, trade, and job-producing activity across
our ports of entry.
What has made that challenging is our inability to
completely understand your staffing model. I think in my
position and for this committee to exercise its oversight role,
I think it is important that you share that with us, that we
understand it. Also just from, you know, a constituent service
role, when I get an email or a text from someone who has been
waiting on the Paso Del Norte Bridge for 3 hours, gets to the
front of the line, and sends us a picture that shows 3 or 4 of
the 11 potential lanes are open, the rest are closed at a peak
travel time, they want to know why you have made the staffing
decisions that you have made.
So if you could please help me understand that with an eye
towards working cooperatively with border communities like ours
that want to help out.
Mr. Winkowski. Oh, absolutely, Congressman. I have enjoyed
a great relationship in my 6 years here in Washington with
Mayor Cook, and others, and the chamber, and they have been
very, very strong advocates of CBP and the borders. I think we
have made a number of improvements on wait times. We have a
ways to go.
I look at the workload staff and model that I had mentioned
earlier as really kind of that game-changer. We need to be able
to convince you and others that we are a good investment. You
know, you invest in these 1,600 positions. You make the tough
choices of changing the user fee so we can bring on another
1,877. But I have got to convince you during that time frame
that we are a good investment. You know, I am going to return
much more to the economy and to the community than what it is
going to cost to hire these people.
So in order to do that, we have got to sit down with you,
other Members of Congress, and the staff, and to go through all
the science. I think you will find at the end of the day that
the resource authorization matrix and the entire laydown is
extremely sophisticated. We brought in a lot of really smart
people. I think we have taken a whole different approach. You
know, back years ago when we tried to do this stuff it would be
a bunch of people like me sitting around with a calculator. It
is much more sophisticated than that, and I think you will be
very happy. But, yes, we have got to educate everybody on that.
I would be more than happy to do that.
Mr. O'Rourke. I realize I don't have much time left, but I
will say, if you could share that information with communities
like ours, I think you will already find us willing partners,
and I think you will find a more productive relationship if we
have the data which we can use to make investment decisions
along with you.
I also just--I would be remiss in not adding that in
talking with many of the Border Patrol Agents and the Customs
Officers that I represent in El Paso, they are also concerned
about the lack of information that is shared from leadership
about their jobs, about overtime, about how they can plan for
their and their family's economic future.
So would just--I know a number of the other committee
Members stressed this point--but I would just, you know, add my
own input that this is critical for us, for them, for morale,
and to ensure the protection of our borders and our way of
life, especially in communities like El Paso. So again, thank
you for your work and your answers.
Mr. Winkowski. Duly noted.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman for his comments and
questioning. We have got votes in about an hour, and so what I
would like to do, if Members of the committee have additional
questions for this panel, I will allow that, and we are going
to go to a 3-minute time period, just to speed things up. We do
have a second panel.
So I will begin the questioning because I had a follow-up,
or at least a question to the TSA Deputy Administrator Halinski
about, on February 25, 2013, the White House had a press
briefing with Secretary Napolitano where she said that such
delays will cause thousands of missed passenger connections
daily. To date, have there been any missed passenger
connections for domestic or international flights? How do you
track that, I guess is----
Mr. Halinski. I don't know, sir. Straight up, I can't
answer that question. I don't know that there have been. I
would have to go back and look and get back with you on that
particular day at that particular time. I don't have that right
off the top of my head.
I will tell you that when we did the planning for
sequestration that we continued to reassess in a changing
environment, and as I said previously, we looked at worst case
and best case, and we looked at furlough, we looked at hiring
freeze, and a variety of things. We looked at the impact of
what would be in different airports, and that was modified
along the way to where we are now. It might not be that way
next week.
I just would have to say at the time and at the place,
based on the information that we had, you have a tendency to
look at it at that day, the way this environment has changed.
So I would go back, sir. I will go back on that day and see
what was there, because I can't give you a specific answer in
that regard. But I would tell you that when you are planning in
an environment like that, and I am going to harken back to my
days in the military, when you plan and the terrain is changing
under your feet on a constant basis, it is very difficult, and
you do plan for the worst, and you expect the worst. You know,
we are continuing to move forward and adjust as things change
and things are modified and they evolve, sir.
Mr. Duncan. I will ask Mr. Ragsdale, because Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Officers are involved with
international flights, if you are coming into this country,
even if you have a connection. Are you seeing a reduction in
those officers, and is it delaying the flights, do you know?
Mr. Ragsdale. So at this point we have not--planning to
really do any more law enforcement hiring for this year. So our
law enforcement officers, it is roughly around 14,000 people
was our static workforce. Our homeland security investigations
agents, where we have groups at the airport, are there to serve
as CBP's investigators. We are absolutely doing everything we
can to make sure we are targeting every high-risk investigation
at airports. But as I said before, in terms of investigative
techniques that cost additional dollars, we do expect to see a
reduction in that activity.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. That is important. Just let's
keep a dialogue open. I would love to know the matrix that you
use and what exactly you are seeing.
Mr. Winkowski, I will come to you on that, but I also want
to ask you about risk-based approach. The folks in my district
say: Why are you cutting Border Patrol Agents on the Southern
Border when we are seeing a lot of the need down there, when
you could reallocate some resources possibly to apply
sequestration, maybe from some of the less risky areas for the
country? Can you answer that for me?
Mr. Winkowski. Yeah. Well, first of all, I will just remind
everybody, we haven't, you know, taken any personnel cuts down
on the Southwest Border, and we have delayed the furlough
piece.
Certainly, up on the Northern Border, if I recall
correctly, the number of Border Patrol Agents we have, about
2,212 up there. I believe that there is either a Congressional
requirement on that or a Congressional agreement on that. I
will stand corrected otherwise, but that is what I believe, so
it becomes very difficult.
I think looking at our coastal areas, Miami, New Orleans, I
think at the end of the day would produce some, but a
relatively small number of resources in those areas to pull
from. By far, the bulk of the Border Patrol resources which
have enjoyed a plus-up, a doubling of Border Patrol since 2004
down in the Southwest Border at 18,500 or so.
So I think there is always opportunities, but I think at
the end of the day it is a drop in the bucket, you know, from
the standpoint of going in and taking people out of these
areas. I still have to do the Northern Border. No matter how
you look at it, I still have to do the Northern Border. It is
an important border and it requires a Border Patrol presence.
But streamlining onesies and twosies, I don't think it really
gets us to where we need to be.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you. The Chairman will now recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Barber, for 3 minutes.
Mr. Barber. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think that
last question you asked was well put. You know, the Border
Patrol, or the Department, ruled out a plan last year, a risk-
based management plan, and we have discussed it in this
committee before. It is a plan that is still lacking in major
components, including metrics, goals, and process of
evaluation.
I really do think that we have to, if we are thinking about
risk-based approach, figure out where the highest risk is and
go there. Obviously, the risk can change rapidly and we have to
be very nimble in our response.
My question really has to do with ICE, and how
sequestration is impacting on ICE. I want to echo an earlier
comment about, before I get into my question, about the release
of the detainees. It may well have been in the normal course of
good decision making, and I don't question that. It may well
have been an appropriate release, and I don't necessarily
question that. But what I do ask the Department to do is, when
a decision like that is being made, at a time like this, when
so much is focused on the borders, border security, immigration
reform--don't blindside us. You know, we want to help. We don't
need to be finding out about these things in the newspaper.
Having said that, Mr. Ragsdale, prior to sequestration,
staffing levels within the enforcement and removal operations
were 8,000 strong and Homeland Security Investigations Division
was 7,000, and those numbers were already deemed to be
insufficient. Now that sequestration is underway, how can ICE
expect to fulfill its mandate to apprehend and process
apprehensions, and thus safeguard the public, if essential
personnel are furloughed? I might just add that we need to
continue to increase our crackdown on employers who knowingly
hire people illegally. If you could, talk to us about how you
intend to do that under sequestration.
Mr. Ragsdale. Well, to answer your question first, we have
roughly around 7,000 special agents in Homeland Security
Investigations and about 6,000 to 7,000 law enforcement agents
in enforcement removal operations. The way we can have those
folks do the best work they are capable of, and these are
professional law enforcement individuals, is to prioritize
their work. So in the enforcement and removal side, the
Director has put out several memoranda to focus enforcement and
removal operations on the greatest risk to public safety,
including criminal aliens and National security threats, to
work in lockstep with CBP to protect the border, so recent
border entrants, illegal entrants, and folks that game the
immigration system, making sure that we are supporting
citizenship and immigration services to make sure that folks
who apply with the immigration process are held to the proper
standards.
So looking at that portfolio, we do that in a way that is
linked to risk. It is really just that simple. We will never be
in every place at every time, so we are looking at
transnational criminal organizations that move the most money,
move the most narcotics, and dismantling those organizations,
both using our international offices and our domestic offices.
In terms of worksite strategy, we are looking not only to
bring as many employers into compliance through the I-9
inspection process, but also targeting employers that are
engaging in criminal activity as it relates to their workers
and their finances and a range of other criminal activity. So
getting the key criminal worksite cases completed is really the
linchpin of the strategy.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chairman
will recognize Mr. Rothfus for 3 minutes.
Mr. Rothfus. I would like to follow up a little bit on what
Mr. Daines was saying about, you know, the private sector. I
myself come out of most of my professional career in the
private sector. When issues come up on restrained, tight
budgets, there is always an effort, I think, to look at
redundancies or ways you can get some efficiencies.
You know, I was taking a look at some the org charts of
what we have across the agency, and I notice, for example, that
each of ICE, each of CBP, each of TSA, there is a leg affairs
or Congressional affairs shop, there is a public affairs shop,
there is a policy shop. We also have similar components at the
agency level. As we look at, you know, pressure on the front-
line operations and making sure that we are having adequate
resources on the front line, is consideration being given at
all, perhaps, you know, through the Management Directorate--Mr.
Under Secretary, this is for you--to look for efficiencies? You
know, why do we need a leg affairs shop in each component?
Could not we be using the resources in those components,
putting them on the front line, and then relying on the agency
level for those functions?
Mr. Borras. Well, thank you for your question. I, too, come
out of the private sector, and clearly I don't think we would
organize our corporate environment the way we organize the
Federal Government, for a variety of reasons. We wouldn't
implement a sequester-type activity in the private sector the
way we implemented it in the Federal Government. That is not
good or bad. That is just the difference between the way that
we operate our fiduciary responsibilities.
I appreciate your point on looking for efficiencies, and I
will specially address your question and just make the point
again, we have been carving out efficiencies out of the
Department. We have documented over $4 billion of savings and
cost avoidances. In addition, we have had to maintain basically
the same level of service, as I said in my opening statement,
over the last 3 years with a 4 percent reduction. So we have
had no slow in the cost of growth either in personnel, salaries
aside increase. There still are other personnel costs that
continue to increase. We have reduced travel. We have reduced
our conference spend.
Organizational movement, that is a very interesting
question. This is a very complex organization. We try to find
that balance between how much do we centralize in an
organization certain activities, like legislative relationships
with this committee and others, both in the House and the
Senate side? How much do we balance the ability to do
procurement for CBP, ICE, TSA, and others, locally or
centrally?
I can tell you that this Congress, many Congresses over the
last 10 years have not favored a large headquarters, a large
corporate environment to perform these functions centrally for
the components. I think that makes sense. It so specialized.
The nature of the issues that we have heard today from both
CBP, TSA, and ICE are so complex, it would be virtually
impossible for us to have very generic legislative folks that
would be conversant on all of these issues, No. 1.
No. 2----
Mr. Rothfus. But don't we----
Mr. Borras. Please.
Mr. Rothfus. I mean we have businesses in the private
sector that are very large that have one central communication
shop.
Mr. Borras. Absolutely. I am not sure that communications
for the Federal Government would be the right thing. There are
areas, like in financial management and procurement and IT,
that we should look at increasing centralization. All I can
tell you is, if you look at the Department's management budget,
which has declined every year since I have been here, and every
attempt to look at ways to strengthen management and provide
additional resources has been rejected, a good point, I will
say.
Accounting and auditing. Oftentimes I am asked, why doesn't
DHS--which, by the way, we are on the verge of getting a clean
audit--but why haven't we been able to do that? Oftentimes I am
pointed to other Fortune 100 companies. No Fortune 100, no
Fortune 500, no Fortune 1000 company would have what I have,
which is 40 people in our financial controls area to oversee a
$60 billion enterprise. It just wouldn't happen.
So there are opportunities for efficiencies. We have been
doing it. We have gotten over $4 billion worth of efficiencies.
I might add that the proposal, the President's proposal for the
budget for fiscal year 2014 reduces DHS by an additional 2
percent. I will continue to have to struggle to find
efficiencies to make that, maintain our current services.
But I think your main point is very valid. I hope we can
continue to dialogue with this committee about ways in which we
can look at our management in the Department and try to make
some good choices about how we have maintained either
distributed system, work in the components versus work in the
headquarters.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chairman
will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. O'Rourke, for
3 minutes.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
I realize the sequester forces some short-term decisions
that are very painful. No one likes sequester. Everyone agrees
that it is a very blunt, perhaps ineffective way to deal with
budget concerns. But does it also provide an opportunity,
perhaps, to rethink some larger long-term projects that you are
currently invested in? The question comes from concerns that
many of us have and many of my constituents have about the
Secure Border Initiative and the virtual fence boondoggle from
the last decade and the billions of dollars spent and perhaps
wasted on that project.
You know, I think personally, I would like to see us review
projects like that before we cut personnel, overtime, diminish
morale, and imperil, you know, the economic future of the men
and women who are working in these agencies.
So are there any plans or programs currently under review
that are in that same category as SBI?
Mr. Winkowski. Well, I like to think we are over the SBI.
We have rethought that. Mistakes were made, as you said. We
have got the Arizona plan rolling out. We have got pieces of
that implemented where we continue to move forward. Very
confident that on the Integrated Fixed Towers, that we are in a
good place. We should see some movement here from the
standpoint of testing systems of that in the not-so-distant
future.
So I think from the standpoint of the technology piece, and
when we look at this whole issue of what do we need down on the
Southwest Border, it is really that technology piece that we
need, that level of sophistication from technology.
I think, though, you know, it may be, perhaps, Congressman,
a little different direction. Sequestration does give you a
forcing function to sit down and really look at your budget.
Okay? I like to think in CBP that we consistently do that. I
can sit here for a long time and talk about the efficiencies
and the hundreds of millions of dollars that we have returned
to the Government by making changes just recently, elimination
of the I-94, air passengers, eliminate $16 million a year in
costs.
But I think we have to look at, you know, what is next
here? So from my standpoint, we saw sequestration coming. We
looked at opportunities. We put hiring pauses on in the mission
support side, and now today we sit on 523 vacancies. We have to
be concerned with that because some of these functions have to
get done. You want to make sure you don't put men and women in
uniform in those. So we are balancing that.
But I think some of the bigger things that really kind of
is on your radar screen, but a sequestration really, you know,
forces you to perhaps look at the time line more aggressively.
This whole issue of rent, for example, is I think a good
example in CBP. I am told we pay about $600 million a year in
rent. When you look at telework, when you look at what they
call hoteling, where you really don't need everybody at work.
The Ronald Reagan Building, for example, we pay $40 million a
year in rent there. I bet you that at any one time we probably
don't have 30 percent of the people that are assigned there in
today. You know, they are on vacation, they are on travel, they
are doing other things.
So I think those opportunities. When you have a sequester,
as painful as it is, and none of us like it, it does force you
to look at those types of opportunities and, that is what we
are doing.
Mr. O'Rourke. I appreciate the level of scrutiny then that
you are putting these longer-term non-personnel commitments
under. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time has expired. But I am
going to ask Mr. Borras to answer that question as well. About
to jump out of your seat to answer that, so I will give you a
few seconds here.
Mr. Borras. I will keep my seatbelt on. No, I really
appreciate the question, and I love it. There are two quick
points I want to make. First of all, of the $3.2 billion that
we are cutting as a result of sequestration, $2.1 billion of
that is non-personnel. So I want to assure you and this
committee that this is not all personnel. Only a little over $1
billion of it is personnel. So there are a lot of reductions.
That is a lot of money. I think, Members, your constituents
would understand that. Two-point-one billion dollars is a lot
of money of cost that we are reducing from there that is not
personnel. No. 1.
I think the Deputy Commissioner or Acting Commissioner
articulated one example. But there are so many examples that,
not just sequestration, but the reality of our fiscal times
over the last several years has forced us and is continuing to
be in many ways an important forcing function to revisit sort
of our conventional wisdom, our basic assumptions on how we
deliver services.
I will give you just one example that will be very brief.
We maintain an aviation fleet both in Customs and Border
Protection and in the U.S. Coast Guard. Historically, those
fleets are maintained, operated, and acquired separately. We
have been spending the better part of the last year with
wonderful cooperation from both CBP and Coast Guard looking at
how--this is long-term, this is 10, 15 years out--how do we
transition that aviation fleet into potentially a common
aviation fleet? How do we consolidate the buy so that we are
not buying 29 different types--I am making that number up--of
aircraft, but we are buying a smaller number and we are being
smarter about how we operate it. I appreciate the Deputy
Commissioner talking about a lot of the administrative and
backroom--rent, the size of our fleet--as example that we are
spending a lot of time and energy on. We are consolidating our
data centers so that we don't have these redundant physical
centers just to house computer equipment.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you so much for that.
Mr. Borras. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir.
Well, that concludes the first panel. I want to thank the
distinguished panelists for being here today and sitting
through this. I look forward to working with you. There were
some questions that were asked today I think some follow-up is
required on, so I look forward to getting that back.
I will dismiss the panel. We will get ready for panel one.
Thank you, gentleman. Panel two, rather.
Okay. We will go ahead and get started with panel two. We
are pleased to have an additional witness before us today on
this important topic. Let me remind the witness that their
entire written statement will appear in the record.
Mr. Brandon Judd is our panelist. He is the president of
National Border Patrol Council and has over 15 years of Border
Patrol experience. The National Border Patrol Council is a
professional labor union representing more than 17,000 Border
Patrol Agents and support staff. The NBPC was founded in 1967.
Its executive committee is comprised of current and retired
Border Patrol Agents.
So I want to thank you for being here today, and I will
recognize you, Mr. Judd, for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL
COUNCIL
Mr. Judd. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member
Barber. It is my pleasure to be here this morning representing
the nearly 17,000 men and women of the United States Border
Patrol and its support staff. I hope to convey their message in
a manner that will help you understand the difficulties of
securing our Nation's borders. As a Border Patrol Agent, I can
give first-hand testimony of the difficulties my fellow agents
face on a daily basis.
Our mission is to secure our borders from those who would
do us harm both physically and economically. Border Patrol
Agents are tasked with deterring, arresting, and seizing
terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, narcotics traffickers,
and human traffickers. At times, we encounter the worst of the
worst.
Due to such, I want to make this point very clear. The
effects of sequestration and the across-the-board cuts that
have been proposed will have a negative effect on border
security. Congress has mandated that the agency maintain a
workforce of at least 21,370 Border Patrol Agents. For as long
as I can remember, this workforce has performed 10-hour
workdays, which has allowed the agency to maximum the number of
agents in the field at any given time. These 10-hour workdays
have also allowed the agency to operate with only three shifts
instead of four to six shifts, which would deplete effective
coverage on the border.
Under sequestration, it is being proposed to scale back the
number of hours agents will work from 10 to 8. This will
effectively reduce our workforce by 20 percent or the
equivalent of losing 5,000 agents.
Over the past 10 years, we have made incredible strides in
making our borders safer, but we have done this by the infusion
of Border Patrol Agents and technology alike. It would be
irresponsible to give back the gains we have fought so hard to
earn in an effort to save a few dollars.
Some have suggested that instead of 10-hour workdays across
the board, we should concentrate all of our manpower in trouble
areas, such as the Tucson, Arizona, or Rio Grand Valley, Texas,
Border Patrol sectors.
In response to this idea, I would simply point out the
recent past in hopes that we do not create the same problem
that the Border Patrol created in the State of Arizona. In the
early to mid-1990s, San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas,
were ground zero for illegal immigration and narcotics
smuggling. In an effort to combat this problem, the leaders of
the Border Patrol implemented Operations Gatekeeper and Hold
the Line. The thought was if they could control these two major
crossing areas, they could effectively control the border. No
one thought the smuggling organizations would risk crossing
their product through the inhospitable deserts of Arizona.
Nothing could have been farther from the truth.
Coupled with an extremely strong economy and Operations
Gatekeeper and Hold the Line, illegal crossings in Arizona
increased to levels never before seen in the history of the
Border Patrol.
For the past 12 years, we have been trying to play catch-up
to a problem we created. The idea that we can simply throw all
of our resources at certain areas will repeat the problems of
the past. We have been making indisputable gains by an across-
the-board enforcement effort, so why would we scrap that by
repeating past mistakes?
Sequestration is forcing the hands of our elected officials
to make cuts at a time when we can't afford these cuts. The
long-ranging immigration debate is well underway in Washington,
but it is critical that border security be a part of that
solution. Across-the-board cuts or concentrated areas of
specific enforcement will create holes in the border that will
be exploited by the cartels that control all illegal activity
in border regions.
The long-term answer is not a short-term Band-Aid, which
brings me to my second point: We need a pay reform system that
will save the taxpayer and Government money while increasing
border security and giving a sense of stability to Border
Patrol Agents. I believe I am the first and probably the last
labor organization you will ever hear from that is asking for a
pay cut in an effort to make a product better.
I do not do this lightly. Almost all agents who are
affected by this proposal would take home less pay. However,
this proposed reform brings about certainty to the agency and
to the agents; it saves money for the taxpayer; and most
importantly allows for a consistent level of border security.
There is legislation that is being circulated that will
certainly have the positive effect I have discussed, and I am
imploring you to support this legislation when you get the
chance.
In closing, I want to stress the two points I made for you.
The first is there can be no question that sequestration hurts
border security. The proposed cuts amount to a 20 percent
reduction in manpower and is unworkable, given our current
system and situation. Second, we need a pay system that is
palatable to the agency, agents, and the taxpayer. The reform I
have proposed saves tax dollars, reduces overtime pay, and
brings about financial certainty.
I submit my remarks on behalf of the 17,000 member agents,
who are dedicated to their work and our Nation's mission to
have a secure border while maintaining the overarching
principles of openness and fairness. I appreciate this time and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brandon Judd
April 12, 2013
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, distinguished Members of
the committee, it is an honor for me to appear before you today. I
serve as the president of the National Border Patrol Council and I
speak on behalf of more than 17,000 Border Patrol Agents who secure
over 6,000 miles of international boundaries between Mexico and Canada,
and 2,000 miles of coastal waters.
Today, I am here on behalf of the Council to discuss the effect of
sequestration on border security. Let me be brief and clear: There can
be no question that across-the-board cuts affect border security. As
Border Patrol Agents, we strive to apprehend and deter terrorists, drug
smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal immigrants from entering the
United States. In 2011, we made over 350,000 apprehensions on the
Mexican border alone. We seized close to 11,000 pounds of cocaine, and
2.6 million pounds of marijuana. Agents are vital even at the 700-mile-
stretch where fencing has been installed. Without constant surveillance
and patrol, we know from experience that the fences would be quickly
cut through, climbed over, or otherwise rendered useless by drug
cartels and traffickers, no matter how advanced our electronic system
is.
To achieve border security, over 20,000 agents work in three, 10-
hour shifts, including 2 hours of overtime per agent per day. This
structure is the equivalent of having 25,000 full-time Border Patrol
Agents, but at a far lower cost to taxpayers. It is important to
understand that the current border security system relies on agents
working overtime as a cost-saving measure because it is far more
economical to pay for 2 hours of overtime than it is to recruit and
train 5,000 new agents, especially under current fiscal constraints.
The proposed sequestration cuts would mean the loss of 2 hours of
manpower per agent per day or the equivalent of scaling down the
workforce to approximately 16,000 agents.
The agents typically use the 2 overtime hours to cover shift
changes when points of entry at the border are the most vulnerable. Let
me provide the Members of the committee with some examples to
illustrate the point:
The 2-hour overtime is commonly used to track illegal
crossings that occur during shift changes. Drug cartels are
well-informed about the agents' shift changes and information
relevant to their chances of apprehension, from the number of
beds available at detention centers to the amount of time it
takes to process through a holding tank. They know their
greatest chance for crossing the border illegally is at the end
of each shift, and many plan their crossings accordingly. As a
result, agents routinely track and investigate groups that have
attempted or succeed in crossing the border during their 2-hour
overtime work period.
Similarly, criminal cartels often attempt to drive their
vehicles through the border during shift changes, seeking to
take advantage of the change in personnel. Agents routinely
investigate leads or drive in pursuit of those vehicles during
the 2-hour overtime period.
Some have suggested that the agency can limit overtime manpower
only to areas that are currently experiencing high apprehension rates,
such as in Casa Grande, Arizona. Let me respond to this suggestion by
providing an example from our recent history. Many of you may remember
that in the mid-1990s, strict enforcement coupled with extra manpower
in San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas, caused the pattern in
illegal immigration to shift to Arizona almost overnight. As a result,
while San Diego and El Paso might have experienced a temporary drop in
illegal crossing, towns like Nogales in Arizona saw their illegal
crossings rise to the level of chaos, ultimately requiring a 30 percent
increase in Border Patrol Agents to staff the crossing point. If we
selectively limit manpower to current locations with high volumes of
illegal crossing, all we have really achieved is in shifting the point
of illegal entries to a different location, especially given how well-
informed organized crime has become in the past decade. Our borders can
never be secure if we do not have a comprehensive and thoughtful
approach to border security. If we constantly fall one step behind
criminal cartels, and if the best we can do is to merely shift the
points of illegal entry, we will have accomplished nothing.
The 20,000-plus Border Patrol Agents are our Nation's first line of
defense in combatting terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal
immigration. The current system relies on these agents working three,
10-hour shifts to achieve a stable border. The proposed sequestration
cuts amount to a 20 percent reduction in our work force--in our ability
to detect illegal weapons, to track and apprehend drug and trafficking
cartels, and to prevent illegal entries.
Let me now move on to my second point. Border security should not
ebb and flow with Washington's political climate. The current
sequestration, if implemented would be detrimental to our Nation's
security by suddenly reducing Border Patrol's workforce by 20 percent.
Instead, we need a stable pay and administrative system that reduces
reliance on overtime, while maximizing the existing workforce. The
proposed system should save costs for the taxpayers, bring certainty to
the agency's budget, and most importantly--provide a consistent level
of patrol, surveillance, and investigation that leads to apprehension
and deterrence.
To that end, the Border Patrol Council has proposed a long-term
solution that results in a $6,000 loss of annual income per agent,
while maintaining the level of manpower necessary at borders and ports
of entry without relying on further hiring. We achieve this goal by
modifying the current overtime pay scheme.
Under current law, Border Patrol Agents who work in excess of 85.5
hours over a 2-week pay period are paid overtime of time-and-half up to
the 100-hour threshold. Overtime that is worked beyond the 100-hour
threshold is paid at half time. We propose to save costs by reducing
overtime pay in exchange for a one-time, two-step increase in the
agent's base pay. These changes will save the Border Patrol over $40
million in the first year and $125 million annually every year
thereafter.
We do not propose these changes lightly. Almost all agents who are
affected by the proposal would take home less pay as a result. However,
the proposal, if adopted, would provide certainty for everyone--the
agency, the 20,000-plus Border Patrol Agents, and the public--by
providing a predicable budget, and a consistent level of border
security that is resilient.
In conclusion, I want to stress the two points I made today for the
committee. The first is there can be no question that sequestration
hurts border security. The proposed cuts amount to a 20 percent
reduction in manpower and is unworkable given our current system of
three, 10-hour shifts without hiring and training more agents. From a
policy standpoint, it is important to understand that in addition to
apprehension, the agents' reliable and consistent presence, day in and
day out, deters criminal cartels, traffickers, and terrorists by making
it more difficult and costly for them to enter the United States
illegally. Second, it is high time that we implemented a pay system
that is palatable to the agency, agents, and the tax payer. The reform
I have just proposed saves tax dollars, reduces overtime pay, and
brings about financial certainty to both the Border Patrol Agents and
the agency alike. I submit my remark on behalf of the 17,000 member
agents who are dedicated to their work and our Nation's mission to have
a secure border while maintaining the overarching principles of
openness and fairness.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Judd, for your opening
testimony.
Just for the record, let me say that, in my opinion, there
are two valuable assets for Customs and Border Patrol: The
first one is personnel, and the second one are canines. They
are very effective. We have boots on the ground. We are
securing the border. But I have seen, just in my short time of
being in Congress and since 2008, we have increased CBP
personnel by 4,000 agents. We have doubled the size of CBP over
the last decade, or since 9/11, and so--and I appreciate your
being here.
I just want to ask you, CBP failed to adequately estimate
its salary needs for its operational workforce, resulting in an
estimated $214 million shortage in fiscal year 2013, and they
had to ask for some flexibility in the substitute continuing
resolution recently to make up for that shortfall.
So just having kept that in--keep that in mind. I am
interested in your proposal. I am interested in the changes of
two-step increase in the agent's base pay, and I am also
interested in how you calculate the savings, the numbers that
you provided in your statement. Then I would also like you to
talk a little bit about how those step increases may affect
long-term liabilities for our Nation with regard to pensions
and retirement and other things. So if you could address, (A),
the two-step increase plan a little bit more on the record, and
then also how you calculate the savings, and then what impact
you think that will have, a reality would have, going forward
for the future liabilities of the Nation.
Mr. Judd. Thank you. Our current overtime system is
administrative uncontrollable overtime. You are actually
getting us on a very cheap scale. We don't receive time-and-a-
half. In some cases, we don't even receive straight time. For
the first 5.5 hours of our overtime, we are receiving straight
time; for the next 14.5 hours, we receive a little bit less
than time and a half, and anything over 100 hours in a pay
period, which our agents regularly work, we receive half time
of our base pay. So you are already getting us on a very cheap
wage.
What we have proposed is to get rid of that time-and-a-half
and just take us to straight time. That by getting rid of that
time-and-a-half, you are looking at a savings of anywhere
between $115 million to $135 million.
To offset that initial loss, what we are offering you is we
are offering to give you $7,000, and in return, we are asking
for $4,000 back to offset the loss in the first year that
agents would face.
We are a very, very young workforce. The Border Patrol has
doubled in the last few years. Because we are a young
workforce, each one of us will most likely reach the highest
step that we can reach. So the calculations in retirement are
still going to be there, because most of us are going to reach
that step.
What you are doing by giving us the two-step increase is
you are offsetting the initial loss that we would face of the
$7,000, but as far as the retirement goes, because we are
mostly--because most of us are going to reach that, the highest
step, the retirement is going to be the same.
Mr. Duncan. Just a follow-up from the Panel No. 1, and that
is an allocation of resources and how they apply to
sequestration. My understanding is there has been a reduction
in CBP personnel across the whole agency, versus a
reallocation--and we asked Mr. Winkowski this question--a
reallocation of those resources from some areas that are less
risky and mitigate that risk by increasing or keeping personnel
the same in the higher-risk areas and primarily the Southern
Border at the present.
How would the union feel about reallocation of resources,
and could possibly mean the relocation of personnel from their
current homes or their current stations to other areas?
Mr. Judd. The reallocation of resources, what I think that
we need to look at first and foremost is without the agents in
the areas where you need them, you are not going to be able to
arrest the number of illegal aliens that cross the border or
the narcotic smugglers that are crossing the borders. The
technology is great. We have lots of drones. In fact, we are
using a VADER system right now that is on loan from the Army.
Those drones and that system is fantastic. They can see the
people that are entering the country. But without the agents to
arrest those people that enter the country, those systems just
don't work, so what we would--what we would implore you to look
at is to look at if we overstuff ourselves with a bunch of
technology, do we have enough people to arrest the aliens that
are there?
As far as reallocating resources to different areas, we
have been doing that for years. We have a voluntary relocation
program that we continue to ask the agency to use on a regular
basis. This voluntary relocation program allows the agency to
move us on a very, very cheap scale--not even close, it is a
fraction of what the Department of Defense pays to move a
person from one area to another area. So we absolutely
encourage that.
Mr. Duncan. Yeah. Thanks for that. My time is expired.
I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Barber.
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin my questions, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that a written statement provided to the subcommittee
by the president of the National Treasury Employees Union be
inserted into the record.
Mr. Duncan. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
April 12, 2013
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Barber, distinguished Members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this
testimony. As president of the National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 24,000
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers and trade enforcement
specialists who are stationed at 329 land, sea, and air ports of entry
(POEs) across the United States. CBP employees' mission is to protect
the Nation's borders at the ports of entry from all threats while
facilitating legitimate travel and trade. CBP trade compliance
personnel enforce over 400 U.S. trade and tariff laws and regulations
in order to ensure a fair and competitive trade environment pursuant to
existing international agreements and treaties, as well as stemming the
flow of illegal contraband such as child pornography, illegal arms,
weapons of mass destruction, and laundered money.
In fiscal year 2012, CBP seized more than 4.2 million pounds of
narcotics across the country. In addition, the agency seized more than
$100 million in unreported currency through targeted enforcement
operations. At ports of entry in fiscal year 2012, CBP Officers
arrested nearly 7,700 people wanted for serious crimes, including
murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Officers also stopped nearly
145,000 inadmissible aliens from entering the United States through
ports of entry. Inadmissibility grounds included immigration
violations, health, criminal, and National security-related grounds.
Additionally, CBP agriculture specialists conducted more than 1.6
million interceptions of prohibited plant materials, meat, and animal
by-products at ports of entry while also stopping nearly 174,000
potentially dangerous pests.
CBP uniformed and non-uniformed personnel at the air, sea, and land
ports of entry not only ensure a secure border, but also collect
significant revenue through trade compliance and enforcement. CBP is a
revenue collection agency, processing more than $2.3 trillion in fiscal
year 2012 in total trade value. CBP processed 25.3 million cargo
containers through the Nation's ports of entry in fiscal year 2012, up
about 4 percent from the previous year. In addition, CBP conducted
nearly 23,000 seizures of goods that violate intellectual property
rights, with a total retail value of $1.2 billion, representing a 14
percent increase in value over fiscal year 2011.
CBP personnel at the ports of entry are key to achieving and
maintaining a secure border and the greatest current threat to border
security is sequestration under the Budget Control Act that went into
effect on March 1.
Under sequestration, CBP's Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
discretionary and mandatory accounts must be reduced by $512 million.
This number includes a cut of $75 million in CBP user fee accounts.
User fees will continue to be collected from industry to provide travel
and trade security, immigration and agriculture inspection services,
but CBP will be prohibited from using a portion of these user fees.
User fees are not a tax, by law they pay for specific services provided
by the Government. Sequestration limits the use of these collected fees
to pay for CBP inspectional services.
Also, under sequestration, the cut to the CBP S&E account included
a reduction of $37.5 million for inspectional overtime at the POEs.
Overtime is essential when staffing levels are insufficient to ensure
that inspectional duties can be fulfilled, that CBP Officers have
sufficient back-up and that wait times are mitigated. In CBP's own
words, ``Overtime allows CBP Office of Field Operations to schedule its
personnel to cover key shifts with a smaller total personnel number.''
The sequester significantly cuts overtime hours and will result in
longer wait times at the ports of entry.
On March 26, the President signed a Continuing Resolution (CR) to
fund the Government through the end of the fiscal year. The CR does not
cancel the sequester. Congress did provide some additional funding for
the CBP S&E account in the CR, but also required CBP to maintain the
current CBP Officer staffing level. Maintaining current staffing floors
means CBP cannot use all of the increased funding in the CR to reduce
furloughs for current employees since it must continue to fill vacant
positions.
Prior to enactment of the CR, the CBP sequester plan required all
CBP employees to be furloughed up to 14 days during the remainder of
fiscal year 2013 or 1 day per pay period beginning early to mid-April
through September 30, resulting in a 10% pay cut for all CBP employees.
The initially-proposed furloughs would have exacerbated an already
unsustainable shortage of CBP inspection and enforcement personnel at
international air, sea, and land ports of entry.
With the additional funding included in the CR, however, there may
be a reduction in the number of furlough days that all CBP employees
must take before the end of the fiscal year. In light of the new
funding bill, CBP is re-evaluating previously planned furloughs, and
has postponed implementation of furloughs pending that re-examination.
There is no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and travel
efficiency, however, than the lack of sufficient staff at the ports of
entry. Understaffed ports lead to long delays in our commercial lanes
as cargo waits to enter U.S. commerce.
Those delays result in real losses to the U.S. economy. According
to a draft report prepared by the Department of Commerce, border delays
in 2008 cost the U.S. economy nearly 26,000 jobs and $6 billion in
output, $1.4 billion in wages, and $600 million in tax revenues
annually. According to the same report, by 2017, average wait times
could increase to nearly 100 minutes, costing the United States more
than 54,000 jobs and $12 billion in output, $3 billion in wages and
$1.2 billion in tax revenues. The cumulative loss in output due to
border delays over the next 10 years is estimated to be $86 billion.
More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in
international trade, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
If Congress is serious about job creation, then Congress should support
enhancing U.S. trade and travel by mitigating wait times at the ports
and enhancing trade enforcement by increasing CBP security and
commercial operations staffing at the air, sea, and land ports of
entry.
cbp staffing shortage effects in florida, texas, and california
On February 20, DHS Secretary Napolitano, at the request of
Florida's Governor Rick Scott, toured the Miami International Airport
(MIA) with a delegation from Congress and airline and cruise
representatives and other industry stakeholders. Governor Scott noted
that insufficient staffing at the new state-of-the-art CBP facility at
MIA caused a ``bottleneck'' for passengers trying to exit customs. ``As
a result, customers--often numbering well over 1,000 a day--and their
baggage are misconnected and must be rebooked on later flights, many
leaving the next day.''
In a letter to the Secretary, Governor Scott stated, ``If this
staffing problem is not corrected immediately, it has the potential to
damage Florida's international competiveness. More than 1 million jobs
in Florida depend on international trade and investment. The
engineering models and recommendations reflected that for optimal
operations a minimum of 62 of the 72 lanes must be staffed at peak
arrival periods.''
Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart said after the tour, ``Tourism is the
backbone of Florida's economy, and DHS must do more to adequately staff
our ports. Our CBP agents are working diligently to protect us from any
security threats, illegal substances, and invasive pests and diseases
entering the United States, but the lack of staffing is creating long
and disorganized lines for travelers, and discouraging travelers from
visiting and using South Florida's ports.''
Another State with on-going significant CBP personnel staffing
shortages is Texas where more than 420,000 jobs depend on trade with
Mexico. Texas leads the Nation with 29 international ports of entry.
The Houston field office manages 19 of these, including the Port of
Houston, George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and airports at
Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Midland, Lubbock, Amarillo, and
also Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Currently IAH wait times are considerably
longer than Houston's airport competitors--Dallas and Atlanta. And the
city of Houston is considering a proposal to allow international
commercial flights at Hobby Airport.
In El Paso, city officials have used the word ``crisis'' to
describe the sometimes hours-long wait times at the local ports of
entry and are considering legal action over the environmental effect of
international bridge wait times and ``CBP's failure to keep those
booths open.''
Wait times of up to 3 hours at Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX), the Nation's third-busiest airport moved 10 Members of Congress
to demand that CBP transfer CBP Officers from other ports of entry to
LAX. Despite continuing staffing shortages at LAX, the Bradley terminal
is undergoing a $1.5 billion overhaul that calls for expanding the
number of CBP inspection booths to 81.
Also in California, Congress has funded the first phase of a $583
million upgrade of the Port of San Ysidro. When the first phase is
completed in September 2014, there will be 46 inspection booths--up
from the current 33. An additional 17 booths would be built in the
third phase bringing the total number of booths needing CBP Officer
staffing from 33 to 63.
As noted in these examples, Congress, local jurisdictions, and
industry stakeholders continue to act as if CBP can staff whatever is
built.
CBP cannot adequately staff existing port facilities under current
funding levels provided by Congress. Proposed port expansions, allowing
international flights at airports that are currently not served by
international flights, and other new construction to address the growth
in international trade and travel, is not possible under the
Congressionally-mandated sequester. And, if the sequester, which is
intended to be permanent, continues into fiscal year 2014, the current
levels of CBP staffing, as set by Congress in statute, will be
unsustainable.
cbp's on-going poe staffing shortages and the fiscal year 2014 budget
The sequester only exacerbates CBP's on-going staffing shortage
problem. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported,
``At seven of the eight major ports we visited, officers and managers
told us that not having sufficient staff contributes to morale
problems, fatigue, lack of back-up support and safety issues when
officers inspect travelers--increasing the potential that terrorists,
inadmissible travelers and illicit goods could enter the country.''
(See GAO-08-219, 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 GAO-08-
219, page 33.)
Without adequate personnel at secondary, wait times back up and
searches are not done to specifications. This is a significant cargo
security issue. 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 the
search will then take well over an hour.
Also, when CBP was created, it was given a dual mission of
safeguarding our Nation's borders and ports as well as regulating and
facilitating international trade. It also collects import duties and
enforces U.S. trade laws. Since CBP was established in March 2003,
there has been no increase in CBP trade enforcement and compliance
personnel. In effect, there has been a CBP trade operations staffing
freeze at March 2003 levels and, as a result, CBP's revenue function
has suffered and duty and fee revenue collected has remained flat.
NTEU applauds the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget that
would end sequestration and provide $221 million to fund 1,600 new CBP
Officers and mobile equipment. The budget also proposes to increase the
Immigration Inspection User Fee and COBRA user fees by $2. These user
fee increases, if enacted, would fund 1,877 additional new CBP
Officers. Together the appropriations and user fee increases would fund
3,477 new CBP Officers.
NTEU would ask that Congress also consider increasing the number of
CBP Agriculture Specialists and non-uniformed CBP trade operations
personnel to address the ever-increasing volume of agriculture
commodities (along with pests) and imports entering through the U.S.
air, sea, and land ports of entry.
conclusion
As noted by Members of Congress, industry stakeholders, the
traveling public, and DHS's own Advisory Council, for too long, CBP at
the POEs has been underfunded and understaffed.
NTEU applauds the administration's the fiscal year 2014 budget
submission that adds 3,477 new CBP Officer hires at the air, sea, and
land ports of entry--1,600 paid for through appropriations and 1,877
paid for by an increase in customs and immigration user fees that have
not been increased since 2001.
But, by allowing the sequester to go into effect on March 1,
Congress continues to exacerbate staffing shortages at the U.S. ports
of entry, and the U.S. economy, dependent on international trade and
travel, will suffer and U.S. private-sector jobs will be lost.
Therefore, NTEU strongly urges Congress to end the sequester.
The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by the NTEU are
capable and committed to the varied missions of DHS from border control
to the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel. These men and women
are deserving of more resources and technology to perform their jobs
better and more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
committee on their behalf.
Mr. Barber. I appreciate that written testimony, because
while I focused a lot of my concern and questions on the impact
of sequestration on the Border Patrol, I am aware that there is
an impact, obviously, on our officers who are at the ports of
entry, and I want to make sure we attend to both.
But the impact potentially to the Border Patrol Agents is
the largest, I think, of any Federal workforce. It could be as
much as 40 percent cut in salary with the elimination of
overtime, which is really essential time, and the elimination
or the reduction by furloughs.
Last week, as I mentioned earlier, I met in Arizona, first
of all, at a roundtable that Secretary Napolitano conducted
with law enforcement, chiefs of police forces and the sheriff
of the county. I met with members of the Border Patrol in my
district, met with ranchers. I met with people in the city of
Douglas, which is a border town, and I heard from all of them
about their concerns about sequestration.
When I met previous to that with about 160 Border Patrol
Agents and their family members, I was--it was a very emotional
meeting, quite frankly, because seeing the children and seeing
the spouses of Border Patrol Agents and listening to them talk
about what are they going to do, how are they going to figure
out how to manage their household budgets with those kinds of
cuts? Morale is already, I think, low enough in the Department
without making it lower this way.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Judd, for your proposed pay
plan. I think we need to take a hard look at it, both the
Department and the Congress, to see how it might better improve
our border security and get some certainty to agents and to our
efforts to secure the homeland.
Let me ask you, Mr. Judd, about the furlough and
elimination of overtime notices that you received. Of course,
we have passed a continuing resolution that allows some
flexibility and restores some money. Let me just ask, if you
could tell us, I already mentioned the number, but a little bit
more about the financial impact that this would have on agents
and their family members, and what would that likely do at that
level?
Mr. Judd. That financial impact would be devastating. I
don't know of anybody that can absorb a 25 to 40 percent pay
cut. We have built our budgets, our financial structures around
the pay that we have received for, in my case, nearly 16 years.
It will have a devastating impact to communities, such as those
that are in your district. I am from--originally from your
district, southeastern, Arizona, a small ranching community,
and to remove that amount of disposal income that can be used
in those areas would also have a devastating effect on those
small towns and those small areas. We, flatly stated, we can't
absorb that kind of a pay cut.
Mr. Barber. Let me move to the second part of that. There
was a study released not too long ago looking at 19 different
Federal agencies, and an employee satisfaction study was done,
and it found that Department of Homeland Security was 19 out of
19. I think further investigation suggested that within the
Department of Homeland Security, CBP was at the very bottom in
terms of morale.
Apart from this most recent impact, which is not what was
studied back then, why is this happening? Why do we have such
low morale in this very vital element of our Homeland Security
Department?
Mr. Judd. Part of the reason is, is some of the things that
Mr. Winkowski said in his testimony. When he was talking about
sequestration, he specifically focused on the inability to
promote managers, the inability to move managers.
The problem with our agency is they have always been
management-focused. I don't know of another agency where you
can point to a management rank-and-file structure where there
is 1 to 4. That is what we have in our agency. In some places,
it is a 1 to 3: One manager for every three agents. That is
part of the reason why the morale is so low.
The other part is we love our jobs. We absolutely love the
work we do. We love securing the border, but when you have a 1
to 3, 1 to 4 management-to-agent ratio, those managers are
looking for things to do, and oftentimes it comes down to
micromanaging. Micromanaging law enforcement will never work.
That is a large part of the problem.
Mr. Barber. I appreciate that. Let me just--I know my time
is up, but I want to just put one other question on the record.
You know, both of us are Arizonans, and I think one of the
benefits that you bring to your position is that you know what
we are dealing with in still one of the most porous sector of
our Southwest Border. More than 50 percent of the drugs seized
come right through our backyard, and your agents are there to
try to prevent that. It is rugged terrain, conditions are
harsh, temperatures are pretty severe. I know from talking to
agents, that the dangers are around every single corner,
whether it is a cartel group armed with AK-47s or a rip crew
armed to the teeth trying to rip off the drugs of another group
coming through, that rip crew was probably most likely
responsible for the death of Agent Terry. The death of Rob
Krentz, a rancher east of Douglas, was most likely the result
of a cartel member who decided to kill a fifth-generation
rancher.
Please, if you could, from your own perspective as an agent
who wore the uniform on the ground, talk to us a little bit
about the dangers that you see, the challenges you see, and
what these cuts would do to the ability of your--the men and
women you represent to do their jobs and to secure the border.
Mr. Judd. Chairman Duncan, you mentioned canines. I used to
be a canine handler in Arizona. The canines are a phenomenal
tool. The largest group of illegal aliens that I and my canine
partner ever arrested by ourselves was a group of 66. That
would have been impossible without that canine, but we spent
over 4 hours tracking that group before we ended up catching up
to them. It was in the middle of the day. It was right before
the summertime. My canine is a German--was a German Shepherd,
and that canine was absolutely exhausted at that time.
With these cuts, we are looking at having less agents on
the border at any given time. We are looking at less canines.
We are looking at less resources. We cannot--without that
canine, I wouldn't have been able to arrest that group of 66.
We cannot deplete our workforce and expect our agents to be
able to control and handle groups of 66 by themselves or even
with two, with two agents. We need the agents in the areas on
the ground to be able to control the large groups. We are
starting to see those large groups starting to reenter Arizona
right now as we speak.
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. I tell you what, I will put the canines up
against the technology I have seen any day of the week.
The Chairman will recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5
minutes.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. Judd and Congressman Barber for
organizing the briefing held yesterday to give Members of
Congress and their staffs, their teams a better understanding
of what you do, the agents that you represent, what their day-
to-day lives are, and how important it is to the security of
our country, to the welfare of communities like El Paso, really
any community in the United States. I want add that I
appreciate what you and the membership that you represent do on
a daily basis.
Again, I said earlier in the last panel, we would not be
the city we are but for the hard work that the men and women of
the Border Patrol perform each and every day, and that is part
of the reason we are the safest city in the United States 3
years running, so thank you.
One of the very constructive things that I heard yesterday
from you was a proposal on how to better structure payment and
salaries and compensation to the Border Patrol. In that same
light, with that same attitude, you know, if our most important
priority from the perspective of this committee, from DHS, from
the Border Patrol is in securing our borders, if you were at
the table with CBP leadership, how would you suggest that they
prioritize and allocate resources in a time of sequester, in a
time of budget uncertainty, or really any time for that matter?
What is the best mix or allocation of resources, in your
opinion and the opinion of your membership?
Mr. Judd. Well, the first thing that you have to look at is
you have to look at how are you going to get the best bang for
your buck and how are you going to secure that border? That is
the first thing that you have to look. That is your baseline.
That is your baseline starting point.
You have to begin with the agent. It is the agents that
arrest the illegal aliens. It is not the drones. It is not the
canines that arrest the illegal aliens. It is the agents that
arrest the illegal aliens. We have to keep--Congress has
mandated that we have 21,370 agents. With the cuts that they
are talking about, they are talking about effectively reducing
our workforce by about 5,000 agents. That is unacceptable. You
are going to create holes in the borders.
So that is the first place that you have to look at. You
have to look at, how do we keep the agents in the field to
allow border security? Then you start looking at cuts from
there.
Congressman O'Rourke, I can tell you, there are many, many
places that we can make cuts. A couple years ago, looking at
how much money the agency was spending on the camps, what we
called forward-operating bases in Arizona, the agents came to
me and made a proposal to me for an alternative work schedule
that one of the Congressmen suggested that would have saved the
Government nearly a million dollars per FOB. We currently have
several FOBs. As we approached the agency and we gave them a
PowerPoint showing them exactly--it was irrefutable. They
agreed that the savings would have been there, and they still
opted not to go with that.
There are many places that we can make savings, and we have
to look to those places. We have to make those cuts even if
those cuts seem difficult at the time, but we--you have to look
at the baseline, and the baseline are the agents. You must have
them in the field to effect the arrests.
Mr. O'Rourke. You know, I appreciate that, because that is
a real specific area we can look at in addition to these FOBs
and then looking at where you might trim in the face of
sequester. Kind of along the lines of a question I asked the
previous panel--Are there any larger projects that should
receive additional scrutiny, perhaps well intentioned
technology-based projects, I mentioned SBI earlier, and that is
probably too easy to attack that one, that was a clear
boondoggle and a poor investment by DHS, but anything like that
right now that you or the agents you represent can point to
that you say, you know, I don't know if this is the right way
to go, or this is clearly not working, and we should stop
investing in this?
Mr. Judd. Absolutely. Several years ago, we used to be a--
our structure under INS was a region-based structure. INS
answered to specific regions. Under DHS, they decided that this
was not the most effective way to operate. It was ineffective
to have to go to the regions and decide: How are we going to
operate in this region? How are we going to operate in this
region and this region?
The agency has started to bring those back, those regions
back with the Joint Field Command. They have been building new
structures for the Joint Field Command, which are a complete
and total waste of money. We have seen nothing come out of
those joint field commands as far as an agent's perspective and
how those--how that Joint Field Command has changed our job.
So, absolutely, there are many places.
The management upgrades they have just given. I can tell
you back in 2004, the Naco Border Patrol station was the
busiest Border Patrol station in the entire Nation. I served as
a temp supervisor at that time. The temp supervisor at that
time--the supervisor at that time, if they were assigned to
control, were in charge of control, processing, and radio. Now
we have three supervisors that are in charge of each
individual, and we don't have near the traffic. So there are
many places of fat that we can cut, and we need to first look
at the Joint Field Command and the structures that they are
currently building for those--for the Joint Field Command.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. We have time for a second round if you want to
expound on anything. Okay.
Well, listen, I want to thank Mr. Judd for being here, your
valuable testimony. I want to thank the Members of the
committee for their questions today for both the panels.
Members of the committee may have some additional questions
for not only you, Mr. Judd, but Panel No. 1 as well, and we
will ask all the witnesses to respond to these in writing. With
no further questions and without objection, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
Mr. Judd. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
