<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:81781.wais]
KEEPING A STRONG FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WORK FORCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 17, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-104
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-781 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------ ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Christopher Donesa, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Nicholas Coleman, Professional Staff Member
Conn Carroll, Clerk
Julian A. Haywood, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 17, 2001................................. 1
Statement of:
Mead, Gary E., Assistant Director, Business Services, U.S.
Marshals Service........................................... 26
Smith, Robert M., Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human
Resources Management, U.S. Customs Service................. 21
Ziglar, James, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service..................................... 6
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 49
Mead, Gary E., Assistant Director, Business Services, U.S.
Marshals Service, prepared statement of.................... 28
Smith, Robert M., Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human
Resources Management, U.S. Customs Service, prepared
statement of............................................... 23
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4
Ziglar, James, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, prepared statement of.............. 10
KEEPING A STRONG FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WORK FORCE
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Souder.
Staff present: Chris Donesa, staff director; Nick Coleman,
professional staff member; Conn Carroll, clerk; Tony Haywood,
minority counsel; and Earley Green, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Souder. Good afternoon, and thank you all for coming.
Today our subcommittee will explore the extent to which growth,
staffing issues and management are likely to impact the ability
of Federal law enforcement agencies to carry out their missions
in response to recently increased demands. We invited three of
the most important Federal law enforcement agencies, the U.S.
Customs Service, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, which also administers the U.S.
Border Patrol, to testify here today. And we thank Commissioner
James Ziglar of the INS, Assistant Commissioner Robert Smith of
Customs, and Assistant Director Gary Mead of the Marshals
Service for being here today.
The subcommittee is vitally interested in ensuring the
welfare of these agencies. We will continue to explore these
issues and related ones with respect to other Federal law
enforcement agencies.
Even before the events of September 11, 2001, the
subcommittee was exploring ways to assist these key agencies in
their efforts to protect our Nation's borders, to thwart
narcotics and other smuggling, to prevent illegal immigration,
to track down fugitives from justice and to provide security
for our courts and other Federal installations. The recent
terrorist attacks have made very clear how important all of
these missions are. Border security is vital if we are to
prevent international terrorist organizations from carrying out
further attacks on our people. Preventing narcotics smuggling
is vital not simply to keep these poisons out of the hands of
our young people, but also to cutoff funds for the future
terrorist networks. And heightened security at Federal
Government buildings is essential in this new environment.
This hearing will consider how much each of these agencies
will need to grow to effectively carry out their missions,
obstacles and challenges to growth, and to what extent new
emphasis on preventing terrorism affects the ability of these
agencies to carry out other vital missions. There is a broad
consensus in the Congress for expanding the number of Border
Patrol agents, INS inspectors and Customs inspectors at our
borders and ports of entry, particularly along the northern
border. Indeed antiterrorist legislation passed just last week
would permit the tripling of the number of agents along the
Canadian border.
I think every member of this subcommittee would agree that
expanding the Federal law enforcement work force is essential
if we are to meet the new challenges; however, rapid expansion
of the number of agents is often easier said than done. For
example, in 1996, Congress passed legislation requiring that
the Attorney General increase the number of Border Patrol
agents by 1,000 agents per year, every fiscal year through
2001. Although INS was able to achieve this result at the
start, hiring dropped off significantly thereafter. INS
reported that it was unable to recruit enough qualified
applicants and retain them through the hiring process. In part
this was due to the very tight labor market that existed at the
time, in part due to deficiencies in pay and benefits. In 2000,
INS proposed improving the pay and benefits of Border Patrol
agents, proposals that have not yet been implemented. Expansion
of these agencies may therefore require significant
improvements in the pay scale of Federal officers. Moreover,
rapid expansion will be less effective if these agencies are
unable to retain experienced officers they already have since
new recruits will require significant supervision.
I believe we should also consider other ways to assist
these law enforcement agencies, including improving the
infrastructure at our border crossings, making new technologies
available to the agencies, and expanding the use of existing
technologies. As I was talking to Congressman Farr last night,
one of the things he strongly suggests is that whenever we can
use technology, as opposed to people, we ought to do that, even
if the short-term cost is more expensive because of a lot of
these concerns on hiring.
These issues are all extremely important and extremely
urgent, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today
about ways to address them. When Mr. Cummings arrives, we will
take his opening statement, and I think we will go ahead with
the proceedings.
Before proceeding, I would like to take care of a couple of
procedural matters. First I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements
and questions for the hearing record, and that any answers to
written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in
the record. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits,
documents and other materials referred to by Members and the
witnesses may be included in the hearing record, and that all
Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
And I would also like the record to show that Mr. Cummings
and I have really no difference in approach, nor does our
subcommittee, in tackling a lot of these issues. As I mentioned
in my opening statement, we are looking at having a series of
border hearings, and at times we may only have myself present,
or, when possible, we are having the Members on each of the
borders at that place present who may not be members of the
committee. But we are unanimous in trying to get as much detail
as we can get on what the need of your agencies are and how to
keep the commerce flowing as well, and we are going to proceed
ahead with the whole series of things yet this fall and looking
forward to working with each one of you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.002
Mr. Souder. With that, would each of the witnesses please
rise, raise your right hands, and I will administer the oath.
As an oversight committee, it is our standard practice to ask
all witnesses to testify under oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
have answered the question in the affirmative.
The witnesses will now be recognized for opening
statements, and I would like to say for the record that the
statement from Customs has not been cleared by OMB, and I
wanted to show that for the record, and I also just want to say
that I am understanding that we are in a very delicate area. We
are trying to work through the budget questions. I have, in
fact, asked the agency and pushed the agency, as our other
Members of Congress, to give us information. We all understand
the difficulties. Mitch Daniels is a close friend of mine,
being fellow Hoosiers.
At the same time, right now we need to find out what the
needs are, and the legislative branch needs to have the input
from the professionals in the field, too. And we will continue
to work with OMB, with each of your agencies to try to figure
out in the end how to resolve these. I am sure Senator Byrd
will have a few opinions here and there, as will Chairman
Young. But as an oversight committee, the job of our committee
is to identify needs that can then go through the authorizing
and appropriating, and we can't do that if we can't hear what
the pressures are in the system. So I appreciate each of you
coming here today.
Mr. Ziglar, would you begin?
STATEMENT OF JAMES ZIGLAR, COMMISSIONER, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Ziglar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify today about the challenges that we face at the INS
in successfully recruiting and retaining high-quality people,
particularly with respect to the Border Patrol agents and
immigration inspectors who are the front lines of the country's
border control.
I would ask that my full statement be included in the
record.
Mr. Souder. So ordered.
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the committee
expected someone from our human resources department to testify
today; however, I regard the issues before you as so important
to our ability to do our job that I wanted to appear here
personally.
As you know, my background includes management, substantial
management, in the private sector. The one lesson I have
learned from my experience is that people make the
organization, not technology, not anything else. Only people
make the organization. If we don't treat our people with
dignity, respect and generosity that they deserve, then our
efforts are going to fail. And I am here to make that point
just as strongly as I possibly can.
Mr. Chairman, the tragic events of September 11th have
focused a great deal of our attention in our country on our
immigration policies and our practices. The people of this
Nation and Members of Congress are very concerned about the
security of our borders. INS definitely shares your concern.
Within hours of the attacks, the INS was working closely with
the FBI to help determine who perpetrated these crimes and to
bring these people to justice. Within 24 hours of the attacks,
INS launched something we call Operation Safe Passage and
deployed several hundred Border Patrol agents to different
airports, eight different airports in major cities around the
country, along with the U.S. Marshals and working with the
Customs Service, to increase the security at the airports to
help prevent terrorist attacks, and otherwise to restore a
sense of security to our citizens who are in the traveling
public.
INS has dedicated, since September 11th, 1,000 of its 1,977
special agents to the terrorism investigation, and we have
developed over 1,500 significant leads ourselves. At America's
ports of entry, INS inspectors continue to work tirelessly to
screen arriving visitors while encouraging the flow of
legitimate commerce and travel. And, Mr. Chairman, you pointed
that out in your opening statement, and I can tell you that is
of great concern to us. It is of particular concern to me that,
coming out of the business world and off of Wall Street, that
we not destroy our economy by overreaching. What we need to do
is we need to figure out how we facilitate low-risk travel, pay
attention to high-risk travel, but not impede the flow of
commerce.
I am very proud of the INS's response to this tragedy, and
I am proud of all of the INS employees who have selflessly
worked many, many hours to serve their country in this time of
crisis. Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal expected of the INS
today, and we are going to rise to that challenge, but just as
a general wouldn't ride into battle without troops and supplies
and that sort of thing, the INS can't possibly secure our
borders without having the personnel and the facilities and the
infrastructure to do that. We must evaluate how we staff the
Nation's 6,000 miles of land border and over 300 ports of
entry.
Hiring law enforcement personnel is one of the most
sensitive and important functions of a law enforcement agency.
Our ability to serve and protect our country is only as good as
the people we hire. Therefore, we take extraordinary care at
the INS to ensure that the men and women who are securing our
borders are the best and the brightest. This year, based solely
on anticipated action on the President's fiscal year 2000
budget request, plus attrition, we will have to hire and train
approximately 3,500 new Border Patrol agents and immigration
inspectors.
Today I would like to discuss three challenges that we face
in the effective recruiting and retention of these people: one,
hiring procedures; two, pay structure; and three, job
classifications.
To maintain and ensure the integrity and professionalism of
our officers as well as the safety and security of our country,
the INS pre-employment screening process for law enforcement
positions is rigorous. Depending on the occupation, applicants
must pass a written exam, oral boards and a drug test. They
must meet medical and physical qualifications, and they must
undergo an extensive security background investigation. Most of
our officer core positions, including Border Patrol agents and
immigration inspectors, also require a proficiency in or an
ability to learn conversational Spanish. I can assure you I
would not meet the qualification.
INS has made great strides in meeting these recruitment and
hiring demands through our streamlined and aggressive
recruitment program, including the use of uniformed agents and
inspectors for recruiting. In fact, on a full-time equivalent
basis, we use about 60 of our Border Patrol agents, to recruit,
and that has been a very effective method of doing that. INS
has developed a state-of-the-art recruitment effort
encompassing extensive use of media and other things. We have
increased our presence on college and university campuses,
expanded our participation in professional organizations and
increased recruitment of military servicemen and women.
You might be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, that
approximately 37 percent of our recruits have been out of the
military. So that is a rich source for us. I think about 30
percent out of other law enforcement, local law enforcement
agencies. On occasion we have offered recruitment bonuses to
new candidates. In fiscal year 1996, we received 23,000
applications, for example. In fiscal year 2000, we received
90,000. In short, we have worked diligently to improve, and I
think we have built the image of the INS as an employer of
choice.
In spite of these efforts, though, the number of candidates
that make it through this rigorous pre-employment requirements
process is pretty small. In 1999, to fill 2,000 Border Patrol
agent positions, the INS had to attract 75,000 candidates. To
fill 1,000 immigration inspectors, it needed to attract 16,000
candidates. In addition, INS competes with other Federal
agencies--including some of the folks here at the table--State
and local governments, and the military for high-quality
candidates who can meet our requirements.
With respect to pay structure, as you know, the Federal
Government has a number of pay structures for Federal law
enforcement agents. For the INS, the journey grade level that a
Border Patrol agent or an immigration inspector can currently
attain without being a supervisor is generally a GS-9. Many
Border Patrol agents and inspectors spend their entire careers
topped out at a GS-9. Because our Border Patrol agents and
inspectors are well trained, they are routinely recruited by
other Federal law enforcement agencies, most of which have
higher level journey positions. Therefore, we are working with
the administration to address this problem.
I personally strongly support increasing the journey level
for our inspectors and for the Border Patrol to a GS-11. Many
of our law enforcement officers are working long hours in
response to the events of September 11th. Many are not being
paid for these overtime hours because of a 2-week cap, and all
are dangerously close to reaching the calendar year overtime
earning limit of $30,000.
I appreciate that Congress is addressing the short-term
problem for 2001 in both the House and Senate versions of the
antiterrorism legislation. In the long term, Mr. Chairman, the
Commissioner of INS needs the same flexibility accorded the
Commissioner of the Customs Service, and that is the authority
to waive the overtime cap administratively. Our immigration
inspectors are authorized by statute to, ``enforce the
immigration laws and regulations of the United States, and any
other laws or regulations designated by the Attorney General,
and in the performance of these duties, is empowered to conduct
investigations; carry firearms; effect warrantless arrests; or
execute and serve any order, warrant of arrest or search,
subpoena summons, or other process issued under the authority
of the United States.'' That is from the statute.
In the course of their normal duties, inspectors routinely
encounter, arrest and interrogate persons who violate both the
criminal laws and immigration laws of the United States. Let me
give you some statistics that make this point. In the year
2000, immigration inspectors intercepted 123,548 fraudulent
documents and persons carrying them. We encountered 155,830
lookout intercepts from the IBIS systems. We stopped 3,764
aliens for narcotic smuggling. We intercepted 34,473
individuals being smuggled through human smuggling rings. We
intercepted 790 stowaways. We stopped 10,627 criminal aliens
with offenses involving controlled substances and trafficking.
And we initiated over 636 criminal prosecutions under the
Federal laws.
Mr. Chairman, you can see why we are working with the
administration to ascertain the appropriate job classification
for our immigration inspectors. I personally believe that it is
absolutely necessary to accord our inspectors 6C Federal law
enforcement status.
Another factor that affects our ability to carry out our
law enforcement mission is adequate infrastructure. Any
increase to INS personnel should also include necessary
facilities and other infrastructure. While Congress has
provided funding to expand the infrastructure, it has not kept
pace with the growth in agents and workload, resulting in
overcrowded conditions and many older outdated facilities. Many
facilities that we have have potentially serious safety and
health deficiencies caused mainly by age and overcrowding. In
fact, as we stand today, without regard to any additional
personnel or any additional activities or missions that we
have, we are at this moment 33 percent behind the curve in
terms of having our facilities match our personnel and support
our personnel. The cost of providing these facilities is high,
but it is important to INS's ability to fulfill its mission.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that we face immense
challenges, but I can assure you that the dedicated and
talented men and women of this agency are up to the challenge.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear
before you and I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ziglar follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.013
Mr. Souder. Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. SMITH, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE
Mr. Smith. Chairman Souder, I am pleased to have this
chance to appear before the subcommittee today. I was just
informed that my statement is now cleared and can be made
entered for the record.
Mr. Souder. Oh, good.
Mr. Smith. From a human resource perspective, the U.S.
Customs Service has a number of unique characteristics that
present challenges to recruitment, hiring and retention.
Flexibility is the key to our hiring and staffing needs. We
deploy personnel at over 300 ports of entry across the country,
including border crossings, seaports and international
airports. Many of these ports operate on a 24-hour-per-day, 7-
day-per-week schedule. We also station employees at U.S.
Embassies and consulates throughout the world.
Customs' frontline employees must be willing to work a
variety of schedules under adverse and changing conditions,
both physical and geographic. They are required to carry
weapons and frequently find themselves in dangerous situations.
Our pilots find themselves on missions that take them away from
home for extended periods of time, working with the Southern
Command overseas. They fly state-of-the-art aircraft, including
the P-3 interdiction planes.
This past year the Customs Service recruited, examined,
hired and trained over 550 inspectors and canine officers, 38
pilots, and additionally, we hired over 400 special agents,
which was twice as many that we have hired in a 1-year period
in almost a decade. Much of our hiring was achieved through the
competitive staffing process that imposes various hiring
requirements. Other hiring was accomplished through excepted
appointments, which gives us some flexibility, but not totally.
Customs Service has over 2,000 frontline Customs officers
serving and protecting the American public. Our officers are
experienced, with an average length of service of nearly 12
years on the job. Many Custom employees serve in remote
locations where there are limited, if any, medical facilities,
roads, housing, schools, and even stores. We need to be able to
retain these employees and provide them with the benefits that
entice them to stay with the Customs Service.
Customs also has a prominent role to play in
counterterrorism. During the millennium alert it was a Customs
inspector who apprehended a suspected terrorist during a
routine border stop in Port Angeles, WA. Now, in the wake of
the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Customs
Service has been called upon to lend staff resources to many
different areas. We are providing staff to serve as sky
marshals. We have increased our presence through the temporary
deployment of personnel to many border ports and airport
locations. And we are now also in the planning stages to assist
in providing security to the Salt Lake City Olympics later next
year.
In order for us to be able to respond to these situations,
we need changes to laws and regulations that provide us with
greater flexibility. The current personnel laws and regulations
promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management do not
provide that flexibility and inhibit us from staffing in a way
to meet these demands. The administration's Managerial
Flexibility Act proposal would assist us with regard to
retention and recruitment in some areas.
For the upcoming fiscal year the Customs Service is
anticipating the need to hire 2,500 new employees in our
frontline occupations. We already have 500 applicants ready to
come on board and another thousand going through our pre-
employment processes now, but we still need to screen between
15,000 and 20,000 applicants in order to meet our hiring needs.
With your assistance in obtaining the right tools to meet our
personnel needs, we feel we certainly will succeed in meeting
our mission.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today, Mr.
Chairman, and I, too, look forward to your questions.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.016
Mr. Souder. Mr. Mead.
STATEMENT OF GARY E. MEAD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUSINESS
SERVICES, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not knowing exactly
where we would be heading today, I also brought with me our
Assistant Director for Human Resources, Miss Susan Smith, and
our EEO officer, Lisa Dickinson.
On behalf of the U.S. Marshal Service, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today. In 1789, President Washington
began appointing the first U.S. Marshals; 212 years later, the
tragic events of September 11th put to the test the Founding
Fathers' vision of the Marshals Service. This vision was a
Federal law enforcement agency capable of performing a wide
variety of key law enforcement missions anywhere in the United
States.
Immediately following the terrorist attacks, deputy U.S.
Marshals were called upon to provide assistance with the search
and rescue efforts at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.
Within 48 hours the Marshals Service was involved in almost
every aspect of our Nation's response. We coordinated and were
an integral part of the Federal law enforcement presence at 18
of our largest airports. Our Joint Prisoner and Alien
Transportation System aircraft transported hundreds of Federal
agents to assignments across the Nation. Deputy U.S. marshals
assisted the FBI to locate and apprehend potential suspects.
Our Electronic Surveillance Unit used sophisticated technology
to locate possible survivors and the aircraft black boxes
buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center. Deputy U.S.
marshals also provided personnel security for the Director of
FEMA and other Federal officials, and we were involved in other
special activities of a classified nature.
In addition to these missions, we continue to perform the
Service's core responsibilities, specifically the security of
the Federal judiciary. Security at all Federal courthouses was
significantly increased. Within 3 days of the attack, our
Nation's court operations had returned to normal except in the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
The versatility demonstrated by the U.S. Marshals Service
since September 11th is what the President and the Attorney
General have come to expect and what the American people
deserve. We were able to meet all challenges as a result of the
Service's multiskilled, highly trained criminal investigators,
who comprise the majority of our deputy U.S. marshal work
force. However, this hearing could not be more timely. Although
we are proud of our recent accomplishments, we are concerned
about our future capabilities to respond as directed in this
new war on terrorism.
Approximately 2 years ago, the former administration of the
Marshals Service suspended the hiring of new criminal
investigators. Through attrition the number of criminal
investigators was to be reduced by approximately 75 percent.
They would be replaced by officers who would perform judicial
security duties within the Federal courthouses. Fortunately, we
had lost very few criminal investigators through attrition
prior to September 11th. Consequently, we still had sufficient
numbers of criminal investigators to complete the complex
missions we were assigned.
Whether it is the protection of judges, witnesses or
Federal officials from terrorist threats, the apprehension of
terrorist fugitives, the location and seizure of terrorist
assets or the custody of prisoners accused of terrorist acts,
the Marshals Service will become more involved with national
security matters and classified missions than ever before.
The apprehension of fugitives is a time-critical business.
Fugitives know they are being hunted and are therefore
constantly on the move. Terrorist fugitives will face an even
greater urgency to move often and quickly. Any delay on the
part of the Marshals Service to apprehend them will be the
potential difference between a quick arrest and a terrorist
remaining at large in the community. It is essential that we
have adequate numbers of versatile criminal investigators to
perform these complex missions.
In closing, I want the subcommittee to know that the
Marshals Service is very proud to serve this Nation and to be
involved in the war on terrorism. Be assured we will continue
to do everything within our power to help achieve victory.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.021
Mr. Souder. Thank you all very much for your testimony. And
let me say first, as a matter of empathy, as I was explaining
earlier, I was a staffer on the House side for 6 years and the
Senate for 4\1/2\. A measure of empathy as to how many
committees and jurisdictions on both sides you will be
testifying in front of, and whenever there is an issue this
critical, everybody's going to focus on it.
Let me outline a little bit what we are trying to do
through this subcommittee, and I look forward to working with
each of your agencies in focusing on this, and how we are going
to work, which gives me the opportunity to kind of lay this out
here.
Some of the questions that you have addressed today and
some of my questions clearly lie also with the Civil Service
Subcommittee, both in authorizing an oversight in this
committee. Now, interestingly, Congressman Weldon is on this
subcommittee, who chairs Civil Service. His ranking member is
Danny Davis, who is on this subcommittee, and Mr. Cummings and
I are also both on Civil Service. So, fortunately, we can kind
of cross-communicate inside that as we address these questions.
In 1989, when I was with Senator Coates and back when the
No. 1 issue was drugs, and the No. 2 issue was drugs, and the
No. 3 issue was drugs, and we had our periodic big crusade on
the drug war, it became evident to us early on that if we were
going to do that, we were going to have some changes in the
hiring, pay grade and other things, which we did in that
period. And we did a number of pieces of legislation with it.
It becomes a component of an outgrowth of when you focus on
something to be able to get the type of people you need to do
that. But it will overlap with a number of committees. What we
are going to try to do here, for example, I have a number of
senior Members, as you have looked at the list, like Mr.
Gilman, and Mr. Mica is having a hearing simultaneous with this
one on airports over in Transportation, which they also were
trying to get him to cancel, so he may be sitting there alone
also. But it is important we get these things in the record.
And clearly, while we are going to focus here on border, we
probably won't focus as much on air unless we get synchronized
with Mr. Mica.
I have talked to Congressman Shays who actually has
antiterrorism jurisdiction in Government Reform. This committee
was designed and our uniqueness is we were the only committee
that could deal holistically with the antidrug question, and
because of that they put the Justice Department here; in
addition, anything in drugs. All of a sudden we had Justice.
What we have learned in South America and Central America in
particular, when you talk about narcotics, you talk about
immigration. Well, Mr. Mica, when he chaired this, also had
Commerce moved in because you can't talk about immigration and
drugs and Customs without talking about Commerce. So we're
probably the only committee in Congress that can cross a number
of these jurisdictions and try to get into that.
Even that said--and one other thing I want to say as a
predicate. I have been active in the U.S.-Canada Exchange
Group; a little less active, but supportive of the U.S.-Mexico
group. But in the context of doing this series of border
hearings which are starting at the end of this month in Vermont
and Champlain, NY and Highgate Springs, VT, then we are going
to do it in Mexico, in the McAllen region, Laredo and McAllen
and Brownsville--we probably won't do a hearing, but visit
there--and then some of the smaller posts, and then up in
Washington State at Blaine.
We have been working with the Canadian-U.S. group with Amo
Houghton about this; and John LaFalce on the Canadian group;
and George Nethercutt, who heads the Northern Border Caucus;
with Jim Kolbe and Cass Ballenger on the U.S.-Mexico Caucus;
with Henry Bonilla, who represents Laredo; with Congressman
Hinojosa, who represents McAllen; with Congressman McHugh, who
represents Champlain; with Congressman Sanders, who is on this
subcommittee, who represents Highgate Springs; as well as I was
just talking to Congressman Wolf again, who has part of the
appropriations; and Congressman Istook, who are--in our
understanding we are trying to make sure that we are a little
on the same page here because your nightmare is you have got
every committee of Congress coming up. And after Mr. Ziglar's
briefing to a large group of Members proceeded to panic a lot
of us on how we are going to deal with the borders and the
number of staffing and how--which this hearing is partly an
outgrowth of, and Congressman Wolf and I started talking on the
floor about what we could do in the appropriations bill. We
wound up with Congressman Weldon in it, and that led us into
the whole question of the whole Civil Service, and there is
some concern from OMB is if we bump some of the law enforcement
agencies, what's going to happen to other Federal employees who
are kind of off market, and these are broad questions.
But I wanted to make you aware that we are trying to
network; that this is going to be very hard, as you well know,
being called up to the Hill constantly. But as we focus in this
committee on the more narrow concerns, then our goal is to try
to get to the authorizing and appropriating in a much more
synchronized fashion than we have had before. Some of this may
be yet this fall. Some may be in February when we come back at
the beginning of the year if we have an emergency. Some may be
the next cycle. And in sorting through in the questions, not
everything will become apparent short term.
I am very concerned, as are an increasing number of
Members, that we are going to overreact, do some things that
aren't necessarily wise for long-term planning. For example, if
we don't have a vision, and 37 percent of the people who we
hire as Border Patrol agents come from military, and 30 percent
come from local law enforcement, and we double your size, what
does that do to those other agencies if we haven't thought this
out in a plan of attack?
So let me start with a series of questions here that--and
just go through them. First let me look at the recruitment
questions. You each had, to differing degrees, parts of that.
And we all know that--let me ask you this question right up
front: Do you believe that with the existing size of your
Department, you can meet the increasing terrorism demands and
still do what you are required to do or we have asked you to do
in the past in each of your areas on immigration, on narcotics,
and Customs questions?
Mr. Ziglar. Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. We need more
people. It is not a question--if I could make one point. On the
military, we are not going in and recruiting people out the
military. These are people that are retiring early, or they are
leaving the military. We are not actively doing that. And the
local law enforcement, they are people who are coming to us to
apply because they see that as a career that they are
interested in.
I was also concerned, Mr. Chairman, that you said that I
panicked the Members when I briefed you. I didn't mean to panic
you. I meant to show you the dimensions of what we needed, and
I was trying to get you to open your pocketbooks to us.
Mr. Souder. Yes. And I understand. And ``panicked'' may be
an overstatement. But let's say you got their attention in ways
that previously the attention was lacking in the sense of
immediately everybody's concerned; oh, we have got to seal off
our borders, we don't want terrorists coming in. And then they
learn, oh, you mean we have vacancies in the Border Patrol?
What do you mean? I think you had made a statement that five
people had retired the day before. You know, here we are trying
to figure out how to hire people, and we can't fill, and we are
losing people. If we can't retain those we have and fill the
vacancies we have, how are we supposed to meet this need? And
in that sense there was a sense of urgency that there hasn't
been before.
Mr. Ziglar. Actually, Mr. Chairman, you make a very good
point that I would like to mention. What I had said about the
five people was that five people the day before had gone to
work for the sky marshals, and that emphasizes a point I was
making in my opening statement, and that is that because of
this disparity in the pay grades between our Border Patrol
people and inspectors, and, for example, what the sky marshals
will have as a journeyman level, there is really no reason for
our people not to go and apply for those jobs, because they are
to have better working conditions, and they are going to have
higher pay. And these are people that we have trained very
carefully, selected very carefully, so they are perfect
targets. I come from the private sector--they are perfect
target for our competitors, the sky marshals and the Customs
Service, to go and try to recruit from us.
It's our job to make our people like their jobs and to feel
respected and treated with dignity, but if I don't have
something to put on the table that lets them feed their family
better, then they're going to go work someplace else, even if
this is a more pleasant place for them to work.
Mr. Souder. I want to make sure for the record, for Mr.
Smith and Mr. Mead, do you believe that you can--if indeed we
are at a minimum of 2 to 5 years of the intense pressures and
the antiterrorism, that you can meet your increased demands
without additional staff?
Mr. Smith. No. Customs Service would need many more
employees. We have our inspectors currently working 16 hours a
day or more. So in order to facilitate trade, perform our
enforcement functions, drug interdiction, and now our new
mission, antiterrorism, we do need many more people.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, we also have another complication
in terms of answering some of these questions. We don't have a
permanent Director just yet. Our Director is awaiting Senate
confirmation, which could happen any day, and we know that this
is one of the issues that he will address as soon as he gets on
board.
With that being said, we have got about 2,500 deputy
marshals nationwide. That's our total law enforcement work
force. When we were at our peak in terms of response to the
terrorist attacks, we had between 500 and 600 of them, or more
than 20 percent of our daily work force, devoted to extra
special missions that had nothing do with our basic
assignments. And obviously, if those type of missions became
permanent, we could not sustain that level of, you know, extra
support in other areas.
And the other issue that faces us is if we were to acquire
those type of complex missions, we would need to have the
ability of these criminal investigators to perform them. And so
we need our new Director to help us work through the issue or
the decision of the prior administration to draw down the
number of generalist criminal investigators and go with these
more specialized employees who probably would not be suitable
to do protection of dignitaries, complex criminal
investigations and the like.
So the short answer is if we continue those missions, yes,
we probably would need more resources.
Mr. Souder. Would each of you provide for the record--and
maybe you can talk with the staff to figure what the logical
trend line is, whether it is a 5-year trend line or a 10-year
trend line of--and let's work through with staff what the best
measures are--budget, number of agents, and then where you've
had a bump-up, if there was a specific mission attached to that
or a piece of legislation.
For example, as we put new restrictions on immigration, or
as we said this is an antidrug effort or an antiterrorism
effort, because the fundamental question we have, and I've
talked with DEA about this, too, is each agency is
enthusiastically responding to any requests on antiterrorism
and the new pressures. The question nobody really wants to
answer is either you are being diverted from things that were
also important to the United States, or you had excess
capacity. And I believe that the data will show that we have
been already squeezing most of the agencies given the mission.
But the danger of each agency saying, look, we're doing this to
respond to terrorism is the American people are not aware of
what are we giving up as we go to that if we don't add. And I
want to be able to illustrate that in the record and highlight
that as we go through the debate.
Clearly this committee with primary oversight over
narcotics is very concerned that in chasing potential
antiterrorist acts, that, as Congressman Cummings has said, the
main chemical attacks on the United States right now are coming
through illegal narcotics. The Taliban uses that as a funding
source, and we don't want to see their heroin come into the
United States, particularly if we put pressure on Colombian
heroin eradication, and we need to have that. Also mentioned
counterfeit goods and other things that come in through
Customs. Immigration questions that lack of criminal
investigators as this type of thing goes. But we need some kind
of a baseline trend line, which I'm sure we will--if you don't
have will serve well in the other debates.
Let me first, a couple of general things that I--just quick
things that popped into my head off of some of the testimony.
Mr. Ziglar, in your testimony you said that many of the Border
Patrol agents had to be bilingual. Is that generally on the
Mexican border at this point?
Mr. Ziglar. One of the requirements is that they either be
proficient in Spanish, or that they have the ability to learn
Spanish. So we give them some kind of test to understand. That
prompted my comments that I'd never pass that test because I am
linguistically impaired.
Mr. Souder. The Vermont and Maine borders, is there French
in the mix of that? Is that----
Mr. Ziglar. You know, that's a good question. I don't know
the answer to that question. We require Spanish for all of our
officers. The way it works is that a rookie officer comes into
the Border Patrol and goes to the Southwest border first. We
tend to put our more mature, our older and more experienced
officers up on the northern border because it's a different
kind of mix up there. So they come in needing Spanish. But we
don't have a requirement for French.
Mr. Souder. I am going to ask a similar question, Mr. Smith
and Mr. Mead, in just a second. Obviously we are not going to
put somebody who can speak Farsi at every border. Do you
foresee that you're going to have personnel who can field
language questions that if somebody at a border has an
emergency that they need to contact in to somebody to check,
that you will be looking at that as a potential language
requirement?
Mr. Ziglar. That is an issue that we face every day. Of
course, at our points of entry, people come in that don't speak
English, and we have a variety of different ways that we, you
know--bigger places we have lots of people that can speak
different languages. They also can use a--telephonically they
can get some assistance if they have to. But you definitely put
your finger on an issue that we have to address, and that is
more language skills at the point of contact with people.
Mr. Souder. Can I ask the same question of Mr. Smith and
Mr. Mead? Do you see this as a pressing need? Do you have the
skills? Obviously every person isn't going to be able to speak
5 to 10 languages, but the ability to respond if there is an
emergency at the border, they are having trouble with
communications. There are some questions. Is there electronic
ability to get with somebody, or----
Mr. Smith. Well, we do target recruitment of people with
special language skills. Admittedly most of our officers have
Spanish as their second language, if you will. There is one
point, for Federal law enforcement officers, according to
regulation, they are entitled to a foreign language bonus, but
that is only for law enforcement officers. There is no bonus
paid for non-law enforcement officers who speak languages that
we would require.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain in your agency who would be
classified in law enforcement in that sense? Inspectors would
not be.
Mr. Smith. Or special agents, obviously, are included. And
by special legislation our inspectors and canine officers are
also included.
Mr. Souder. So who in that system might have critical
information at a point of contact who wouldn't be available for
a language bonus?
Mr. Smith. Import specialists, administrative people,
entry.
Mr. Souder. OK. So the data sources for the law enforcement
personnel basically.
Mr. Smith. Correct.
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, that makes a very important point
that I made in my testimony in that our inspectors are not
treated as Federal law enforcement agents, even though they
carry guns and they have arrest powers and all of that sort of
thing. They are not 6C Federal law enforcement agents, so we
have that same--we have that problem with respect to our
inspectors.
Mr. Souder. So that's true of the entire INS, you can't get
a language bonus?
Mr. Ziglar. Inspectors. Border Patrol folks and
investigators, intelligence officers are Federal law
enforcement officers.
Mr. Souder. So Border Patrol can, but the inspectors can't.
Mr. Ziglar. The inspectors cannot.
Mr. Souder. The foreign language bonus sounds like a very
important thing to pursue. I guess it's only going to become
more intense of a question rather than less intense.
Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Yes, we actively recruit Spanish-speaking
individuals to become deputies. We don't have enough deputies
that are fluent, particularly along the Southwest border. We do
provide some basic law enforcement Spanish training to as many
of our employees as we can. It is not nearly as comprehensive
as what the Border Patrol does. But we are concerned about the
need for Middle Eastern languages because in addition to
apprehending terrorist fugitives where that would be useful, we
also contemplate that we are going to be getting people in the
witness protection program that probably don't speak English
and don't speak Spanish either, so we are going to need some
different languages there. Just prisoners in our custody as a
result of terrorist arrests may not speak English, or, you
know, we would have the need to converse with them in another
language. There's just a lot of areas where we are going to
need a whole new skill set of languages that we have never even
contemplated, so we are going to have to come up with some way
of doing that.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask you in another--the custody and
witness protection is really interesting because what that
presupposes, which I would assume each of you have had to work
with, too, is that intelligence may come in. The person--in
other words, it isn't just that the people who are, quote, bad
guys are going to necessarily have in the current context of
the Middle East a language question. The people who are the
good guys, are giving us the tips, are also likely to be Middle
Easterners who have seen the infiltration, and will we have the
ability to handle those tips?
We have so focused on the Mexico border and Spanish in this
country that this is a phenomenon that is throwing us off a
little bit, that the stuff that--the leak, if you look at the
border, the leaks are on the Canadian border. Also the catches
have been on the Canadian border. But the potential
vulnerability there, it's--the country has pivoted in how
they're thinking about it because we've always seen--looked
south for the problem, not north. And the diversity of the
country and the terrorist groups, right now it's Middle Eastern
and al Qaeda, but, I mean--and the FARC would be more likely to
be a Spanish language base. But if it's Hezbollah or Hamas or
an Indonesian group, now that we have copycat terrorists, our
language challenges and your challenges and immigration
questions and custody questions and intelligence questions are
immense compared to when we were predominantly focused on the
Spanish language.
Any other comments on----
Mr. Smith. You're very correct, sir. You reminded me that
the Customs Service employs several hundred intelligence
research specialists, and they--a foreign language bonus pay
for them to enable them to listen to the radio, read the
newspapers, etc., would be very helpful.
Mr. Souder. I also wondered, Mr. Smith, if you are able to
elaborate at all when you said current personnel laws and
regulations promulgated by OPM do not provide the flexibility.
Mr. Smith. I have seen the parts of the administration's
Managerial Flexibility Act, I haven't read it all, but there
seems to be some things in there that will help us. The rule of
three that they are proposing change is very important to us
and gets away from rankings. The rule of three, just
interestingly, I don't know if you are aware, that was enacted
for the government in 1888, and hopefully now we will be able
to change that law to give us a lot of flexibility there.
Mr. Souder. Well, I am pretty concerned about--1888 is a
long time ago without changing the law.
Let me ask you a couple or three questions that you don't
need to necessarily answer here, but if you could give me--I
will give them to you for written.
But, for example, how many new officers and inspectors
would each of you need to meet the challenges you are being
asked to face? That can be specific or approximate. And we will
continue to produce that, because, quite frankly, every 30 days
we make new demands and expectations because it is a--kind of a
moving target, so to speak.
Could you address a little bit--each of you alluded to
experience and training--how rapidly new officers and
inspectors in your agencies can be added?
Realistically are we looking at a--I think one of you said
that you had 1,000 in the pipeline, and you had just hired at
Customs. Border Patrol was seeking out more. I think, Mr.
Ziglar, in your testimony, the written that you had, it takes--
you had a phenomenal number of people who--16,000 candidates to
get 1,000.
Mr. Ziglar. 75,000 to get 2,000 Border Patrol.
Mr. Souder. 75,000 to get 2,000.
Could you give me a rough idea of, is your retirement--is
the length of service declining at a rapid rate, or has that
stayed relatively constant, or are you seeing that accelerate?
Are people taking early retirement? You mentioned the five for
the sky marshals. Has there been an accelerating pattern on
that have you seen for a period of time?
Mr. Ziglar. I don't know the answer to that question, but
let me make one point. One of the problems about the 6C is that
you have a 57-year--you have to be 57 years old, you are
required to retire. That may have been a good policy at some
point in the past, but being someone who is about to be 57
soon, I--I don't think it is such a good idea anymore.
But all of the joking aside about it, we have lots of
Border Patrol agents, for example, that are reaching that age
limit that are in great health. They do a good job. They are
grown-ups. They know how to act, and we are forcing them out
the door by virtue of that law.
I think we ought to change the statute to allow for maybe a
little bit later entry. If you--57 you are out, then you can be
hired if you are older than 37, and yet, there are situations
where military folks retire maybe at 41, 42. They are perfect
for us. So we need to change that system, and that, I think,
would slow down the retirement of the good people that we have,
experienced people, in the system.
One thing that Mr. Smith did not mention, that I will,
because I think it is probably a slightly sensitive subject,
and that is the notion of going to an excepted service format
for hiring and promoting people. That is a much more flexible
way of managing your business, and we certainly would like to
have excepted service at the INS rather than going through the
typical Civil Service so-called competitive process, which I
don't find to be very competitive. That would give us better
selection of people, hire them and promote people who really
are performing well.
I know it is a somewhat controversial subject, you know,
that OPM hates it because it would put them out of a job, but I
think it is something that we need to do to run this government
much more like a business.
Mr. Souder. I know you are trying to make a meeting, so I
will let you go here. We are going to give you some written
questions, and one of the things that I will promise to each of
you is to get some placemarker legislation so that we can at
least debate some of those subjects, and we will work with your
legislative offices to do that. That will help force a debate.
Maybe we can get it done this year, some may take longer, and
some will get blocked, but at least we will force a discussion.
But I have some additional questions.
Mr. Ziglar. I just got a note that my hearing--my meeting
on the Senate side has been canceled or rescheduled, so I am at
your disposal.
Mr. Souder. I will go another 10 or 15 minutes to try to
get an idea of the type of things we are looking at.
What is apparent is each of you have in the different posts
in your agencies substantially different training periods,
phase-in periods for different positions. But roughly what kind
of training periods are we talking about in getting people into
your agencies?
Mr. Smith. New special agents go to school for 26 weeks,
inspectors about 12 weeks, and K-9 officers, it is about 13 or
14 weeks.
Mr. Mead. Our criminal investigators go to school for
approximately 16 weeks, and our more specialized law
enforcement people go 10 weeks.
Mr. Souder. And if I could ask each of you, Mr. Ziglar
said--and this is what we want to try to do is not rob Peter to
pay Paul. As we boost things, obviously the temptation becomes
greater to go to one agency or another which is at least in law
enforcement. There needs to be more equalization. But let me
ask also in Customs and U.S. Marshals, where do your recruits
generally come from?
Mr. Smith. In the Customs Service they come from all over
the country. We have a very aggressive recruitment strategy.
Mr. Souder. How many of them come from local law
enforcement would you say?
Mr. Smith. This would be a guesstimate: 25 percent.
Mr. Souder. What about retired military, people who have
left the military?
Mr. Smith. A lot of military. I would guess 30, 40 percent,
not necessarily retired military, but veterans.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. We also get a fairly substantial number of people
with prior law enforcement experience, and we do actively
recruit at military separation centers. And laid on top of
that, we periodically give a national exam that anyone can
take, and even there we see sort of repeat applicants who have
law enforcement and military experience.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Ziglar, does this include--do you pick up
people in Guard and Reserve? Did you include that in the
military?
Mr. Ziglar. You know, I don't know if that is inclusive.
It is.
Mr. Souder. Do you pick up people from private security as
well? Private security operation, is that considered any
valuable training?
Mr. Smith. Customs Service does not target those people for
hiring.
Mr. Mead. A basic security post wouldn't qualify them to be
deputy marshals.
Mr. Ziglar. I mean, we will take applications from anyone.
Obviously the weeding-out process is very aggressive. The
percentage that would come from private security, I don't know,
but I can get that number for you.
Mr. Souder. I am partly curious because, for example, we
look at the airport question. If we would Federalize all of
that, which is predominately done by private security, I assume
that we are going to have a lot of cross-rating, not to mention
at the State and local law enforcement, depending on the
logical ramp-up procedures. And I hope each of you will have
the courage to tell House and Senate appropriators--everybody
gets enthusiastic. It is kind of like if you don't take the
budget opportunity in the year it is offered, you never get it.
On the other hand, we have to have a logical ramp-up
procedure here, or all we are going to be playing is musical
chairs in our system, and part of this is a risk assessment
strategy of where we need to have it.
We have some more technical questions on the pay things. We
have covered a lot of that. You have mentioned language
bonuses, overtime. Do the Customs and the Marshals Services
have overtime pressures on them right now like the Border
Patrol is having?
Mr. Smith. Overtime pressures? Congress several years ago
enacted what we call our COBRA legislation, which is kind of
our processing fees for passengers on conveyances, because our
workload is so great now, we are spending more than we are
taking in, and that is a big concern to us. Additionally, that
COBRA law sunsets, I believe, next year. It also pays for
almost 1,100 of our inspectors right now.
Mr. Souder. So you aren't capped on whether you can pay
overtime? You are capped because of the revenue that pays for
it?
Mr. Smith. Well, we, too, have a $30,000 cap.
Mr. Souder. Are you near that?
Mr. Smith. It can be waived for certain individuals for
justifiable reasons.
Mr. Souder. Do you have a waiver clause?
Mr. Ziglar. No, sir, it is statutory. I have no authority
to waive it.
Mr. Souder. That is what you were referring to.
Mr. Mead. We don't have a cap on overtime per se, but we
are subject to the biweekly earning limitation that I think the
Commissioner is talking about. When our people work 12-hour
shifts, for example, 7 days a week, for more than, you know, a
few weeks, they will exceed that maximum earning limitation for
the pay period, and then they just don't get paid for hours
that they have actually worked, and we do not have any
authority to waive that.
I can tell you that is a very serious morale issue,
particularly in times of crisis where you have got people
working very long hours, very long periods of time, gone away
from their families. You add on the fact that they are not
being paid, that is a morale issue. We don't have a way to deal
with that presently.
Mr. Souder. What do you mean they are not going to be paid?
Because they are salary; therefore, they are not?
Mr. Mead. There is a biweekly computation made, and if you
were earning in that 2-week period what you would be allowed to
earn when prorated out annually, you don't get paid for those
hours that you worked in that pay period. Instead of being
computed on an annual basis, so at the end of your time you
would know where you stood, they actually compute it every 2
weeks and prorate it as if you were going to work that amount.
Mr. Souder. So because this is--I am getting into very
technical Civil Service areas, which we will work through. But
it is a morale question, potentially a retention question, not
necessarily a recruitment pressure, because people wouldn't
have been exposed to it yet.
Do you have other methods--classification in law
enforcement is one. Do you have other methods, or could other
methods be done that wouldn't necessarily threaten a Civil
Service structure in our agencies that could be done, for
example, emergency bonuses, if we were declared in a state of
emergency in law enforcement, that you could have an energy
bonus, or does FEMA----
Mr. Ziglar. I am not aware of an emergency bonus.
Mr. Souder. I am not saying necessarily that there is one.
Are there other things that we could look at that might relieve
some of the pressure short term as a category that would give
you management flexibility?
Mr. Ziglar. I think, frankly, there are really two overtime
cap issues. One is that the 2-week cycle cap, which is really
causing a lot of our people to not be paid for work that they
do, and never be paid for the work that they do, that is beyond
a--that is a fairness issue. I mean, in the private sector the
laws wouldn't allow the private sector to decide how much
overtime they were going to pay, so why should we cap the
Federal employees?
And the basis for that cap is based on level 4--Executive
level 4 pay. In other words, I am an Executive level 4. So
someone could not make, on an annualized basis, more than--in a
2-week period than I could make, even though they worked a
whole lot more than I did. That is just fundamentally unfair.
The other part is the $30,000 annual cap, which is--I mean,
people just stop work when they reach that cap. That is one
option. But that is, in a sense, their option, not our option.
That is not so good to us, particularly in an emergency when we
need those people to be there working, and yet we are not able
to pay them. It is truly a fundamental fairness issue as well
as a good management issue, and I think the Congress ought to
try to deal with this 2-week cap as well as the other one.
And Congress needs to trust managers to make good decisions
about how they allocate the overtime and they manage that
overtime. You know, if you wanted to give us these jobs and
have us come do it, you have got to give us some flexibility to
run the business, and to run it in a way that serves the
taxpayers in a fiscally sound way and also serves the country
from a security and a policy perspective.
Mr. Souder. Also I am trying to think outside of the box a
little bit. For example, I doubt if there is any provision in
current law that if an agency is, say, 5 to 10 percent short in
filing the current vacancies, that they are allowed to make
some sort of a change or have--you had a recruitment
supplement. Is there something that could be for a shortage
supplement? Is there something that could be--if the ramp-up
is--if we ask you to add a certain number of people in a short
period of time that puts pressures on the system, could there--
once again, maybe a variation of recruitment, but an emergency
provision that says, given the fact that this emergency
classification, that--I am trying to think if there is another
way that we can differentiate this; for example, from an
extension office in the Agriculture Department.
Because what I sense is that some of the resistance is
coming because it is perceived as long-term potential pressure
on the entire system because we have a short-term law
enforcement pressure that could be from 2 to 5 years. But the
fact is that Congress is going to put this pressure on because
the American people are demanding to be safe, and, therefore,
in demanding to be safe, we are running into ways--is there a
way to address the particular type of crisis in front of us
other than, in effect, diverting resources?
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, in general, I don't think, at least
from the Marshals Service perspective, we have a shortage of
applicants. The Federal law enforcement positions are very
desirable jobs. Obviously we could be robbing State and local
government, but I don't think that it is attracting the initial
attention of applicants. Some of the things that the
Commissioner and Mr. Smith have mentioned in terms of the
process, how long it takes to get them through the process, are
probably greater impediments to being able to ramp up quickly
than getting the initial interest.
We just announced our new test, and it was only open to the
public, I think, for about 2\1/2\ to 3 weeks, only over the
Internet, and no real aggressiveness out there promoting it.
And we had almost 20,000 applicants. So, you know, it is not
the initial interest, it is how long it takes you to run that.
Mr. Souder. You are probably each going to have differences
within, but you are also going to have qualified versus the
relative qualifications, and also, depending what the economy
is going to make, another----
Mr. Ziglar. I have to say, and that is--we can get people,
we can attract people to it, but the process is so burdened
down with the bureaucratic rules. That is why I mentioned the
excepted service as an alternative, as an alternative to select
and bring them on quick and then promote them based upon how
well they do their jobs.
Mr. Souder. I will start to wind this up here. Let me ask
you another question. This grows out of that. I and others are
somewhat concerned about, particularly if you have worked in
this area for some time, another danger of ramping up fast.
Given the fact that there are pressures that slow us down and
the pressures in adding lots of new agents in addition to
qualified, I happen to believe, and many do, that the only way
that we are going to have much impact on terrorism, on
narcotics, on other types of targeted smuggling is you need
tips, you need intelligence. Otherwise you are looking at a
needle in a haystack.
That is somewhat of a deterrence, looking for the needle in
the haystack, but the truth is most of our busts come from a
tip; that as we put more pressure on intelligence, as we look
at the border, the fast pass or others, a screen to see whether
there is any checking, whether it is at airports or Coast Guard
or wherever it is, obviously it is dependent on the people
inside being clean.
Given the current pressures, are you taking any additional
efforts, or what things do we need to do in the applicants that
are coming in that--and the urgency to bring people on that we
can have thorough background checks and studies to make sure
our intelligence stays clean?
This is like a layman's type of fear. I am afraid we are
going to put these steel doors on the airplanes so we can't get
to the pilot and then find out that the pilot is bad, and we
can't get to him anymore.
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, the old adage that an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure is one I believe in.
Certainly from our perspective, we are not about to lower our
standards in terms of the people we take or not do the
investigations.
An example of what can happen is when the Metropolitan
Police Department here in Washington a few years ago was in bad
need of officers, just bad need of officers, they went out and
they recruited people, and they didn't do the background
checks, they didn't train them well, because they needed people
on the street. As a result of that, we saw what happened for a
period of time until they weeded out people who shouldn't have
been in the force in the first place, and then it created a
very bad situation for the Metropolitan Police, which is a fine
police department.
We are not going to let that happen at the INS, Border
Patrol or any part of our enforcement operation. And I
guarantee you, knowing the Customs and the Marshals, they can
speak for themselves, I guarantee you they wouldn't let that
happen either.
Mr. Smith. Very correct, Commissioner. Those numbers of
applicants that we have said we needed thousands, actually it
is--for every 1 position we fill, we need to recruit or have
applicants for about 20 to 25 to fill 1 position. They do go
through extensive testing, extensive background investigations,
the drug screening, medical exams, physical exams, and actually
the processes that INS utilizes are virtually identical to
Customs.
Mr. Souder. I have been very rattled in the narcotics area
about the compromising of intelligence after what happened in
Mexico with their drug czar actually living in the apartment of
somebody who was one of the cartel members, and we had shared
our intelligence with him, and all of a sudden your entire
network of information suppliers is gone.
And the whole question that we are going to be dealing with
in an upcoming hearing of RIS and EPIC, and as we broaden where
the intelligence goes, there is more risk of intelligence being
compromised.
And I just want to make sure, and you all in your points of
responsibility, that in our pressures to, say, hire a bunch of
people, that you actually are even more rigid than you have
been before in checking their status and background checks,
because the worst thing is if people get inside the system, it
will be in worse shape than we are now.
Mr. Mead, did you want to----
Mr. Mead. Yes. We think that we have a very good record in
terms of ensuring the integrity of our work force, and there is
no reason to change that. There is no reason to change the
portions of the hiring process that deal with integrity, the
background investigation, drug tests, credit checks, all of
those things.
They can be done in a reasonable period of time. It is some
of the--frankly, more administrative requirements that we
impose on ourselves as being part of the Civil Service that
take the extensive amount of time. And regardless of what the
hiring procedures are, we will not sacrifice the integrity
portions of the process.
Mr. Souder. Well, let me just close with this, and we will
send you some additional questions. But one of the--and we may
come back and revisit this again after we have actually been
out to a number of the borders--I have been to San Ysidro a
number of times, as well as Nogales and El Paso and crossed
many times at the Canadian border--that we are not going out on
these border hearings to do anything but try to figure out how
to tackle the problem, going with no preconceived notion other
than it is going to take more money.
But my assumption is we are going to see different things
at the different borders and the pressures that are needed from
the different services. The type of things that we are going to
be looking at are what types of technology are needed as
supplements at the big border crossings, what at the smaller
border crossings, what kind of personnel differences are there
in--if you look at--because we have just been looking at this
I-87, the Montreal corridor. I-87 is clearly going to need a
little bit different than 89 going through Vermont, but in
between there is another little border station, and there is a
couple more.
It is not clear that if you put--and if we put more
pressure on the border crossing, that they aren't going to go
500 yards east through the woods. How exactly is this going to
work? Yet there is no question that we have been pulling our
resources back toward the borders, that the quickest way to get
people is to find them when they are coming in and trying to
penetrate into the communities. So there is going to be
tremendous pressure on this, and we are going to concentrate
resources on it, but my sense is it is going to be different
pressures in different places.
Furthermore, not only do you have at Champlain on I-87 and
at Highgate Springs on I-89 and a border crossing between, you
have Lake Champlain coming up at two points in between where a
person in a canoe or a small boat can come through. We need to
be looking at this in a holistic way.
We need to be looking at it from a trucking standpoint.
Obviously at the Mexican border you can see the prescription
drugs being--in addition to other illegal narcotics, being
carried across and pharmacies lined up, that the challenges are
immense. The responses are going to need to be diverse. And we
look forward to plunging into that, and where we can do it with
technology, where we might be able to do other things along the
border in between the sites that, instead of an invisible
border, are there going to be other technology ways that we can
watch that and tap that in, because if we squeeze one place,
just like narcotics, it is going to move elsewhere. Terrorism,
illegal immigration and everything else is going to be similar.
Any comments, Mr. Ziglar, that you want to make here?
Mr. Ziglar. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right, that
this is not an issue that can be solved by more people alone.
We are going to have to start overseas, where we are granting
visas to the consular stations. They need to have more
information at their disposal so that they can identify people
and not give them visas where the people are coming into this
country under the visa waiver programs. The airlines need to
start providing us information in advance of their boarding so
that we can identify people who may be coming. The INS needs,
the Department of State needs, the Customs Service needs, we
need access to all of the intelligence information or at least
some kind of signal that the person that we have got in front
of us is a problem.
That is one of the problems that we have had in this
government is that agencies don't share information with each
other, and so we may have someone in front of us that somebody
has got some information about that we don't have.
That is one issue. Another issue is use of technology as
part of the web of protection. We can't have soldiers on the
northern border arm to arm. We don't have enough people to do
that. There are places that people can come over. We have to
identify those potential corridors. We have got to beef up our
security there. We have got to use remote surveillance,
sensing, all of those sorts of things on the border so that at
least we have some early warning system.
We need to work with our neighbors to the north and to the
south so that we, in effect, have a perimeter security approach
to things, because if they are coming across our borders, they
are coming through some other country, land borders. If we can
work with our neighbors to keep people out of their country,
they will not get to our country, and they will not create
problems for them either.
It is truly a holistic approach that is needed to deal with
this, yet at the same time understanding that millions and
millions and hundreds of millions of people that come to this
country every year are not coming here to do us harm. They are
coming here to visit the United States. They are coming here to
spend money in this country. They are coming to visit family.
They are an enormous number of low-risk travelers that we can
identify and we can bring in this country on an expedited or
facilitated basis.
Commerce going across our borders is not commerce that is
designed to do damage to us, it is designed to support our
economy and their economy, and we have to develop good ways of
identifying those things that need to be facilitated, and those
things that are high risk to our country, identifying those and
dealing with them.
But it is truly a holistic issue, and to say that we can
close our borders and that will fix it is not an answer. It
will kill our economy, it will kill our freedom, and it will
kill everything else in sight. So we have to be rational, and
we have to do this in a studied approach, realizing that we
need to get on with it, because the American people do feel a
sense of insecurity.
But I endorse what you said; that is, that we need to look
at this in a very dispassionate, calm way, because if we do
things that make us feel good but don't work, we are worse off
than as if we did nothing.
Mr. Souder. Before I close, I forgot there was one line of
questioning I wanted to raise. This is not a primary function
of this hearing, which was to focus just on the work force.
But, particularly Mr. Ziglar and Mr. Smith, if you can, I know
they are doing this at San Ysidro, what has historically kind
of happened is that when we know someone at the border is
looking for drugs, there is some movement of the people who are
moving illegal immigrants, even in the lanes--to some degree
the similar thing is if you are looking for immigrants, if
there is a Customs person, because--and this is leading to a
broader question, but at San Ysidro some of the agents are
being cross-trained so that traditional people and Customs can
do some immigration things. People who are trained to be the
drug specialists can also look for other things. This has
become huge in the antiterrorism question.
My concern there on the narcotics committee is that we are
going to be so busy looking for terrorists that we forget to
look for the other things. If you can give us some information
of which borders the cross-training is occurring, where we
could accelerate those processes, because the No. 1 thing that
is getting a head of steam among Members--and I would like to
also get--if you want to give it for the record, or written,
that--your opinion on this--there is talk about, well, we need
one superagency to do this south border, we need one
superagency for the north border, this jurisdictional question
doesn't work. But the problem is your missions are different
once they go away from the border.
We have looked at this for many years. There may need to be
a supervisor, but if we just get another homeland terrorism
czar, drug czar, border czar, all of the additional agencies,
we are getting so much bureaucracy. I am interested in your
reaction to that, and can that, in effect, be headed off by
more cross-training at the border where your agents, even if
you are from diverse agencies, can help cover the other
agencies' questions.
Mr. Ziglar. That is a perfect question. I can tell you that
based upon my extensive 2 months' experience in this job, that
the Customs Service and the INS work together very
cooperatively at the borders. We share jurisdiction at the
ports of entry, and we cross-train our people, because there
are times when Customs people are doing an INS function and
vice versa. So we do cross-train our people, and they work
together very well. In fact, many of the regulations at the
ports of entry are--for example, on threat levels, those are
the guidelines that the Customs Service has that we work with
them on when we change a threat level.
So it is a very cooperative relationship. Sometimes it is
competitive when they want to hire our folks, but it is a very
cooperative relationship, and we understand what we are trying
to do there. What we need together are more resources so that
we can really do that job and do that job effectively.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I can only second Commissioner Ziglar's
response.
Mr. Souder. Well, thank you, each of you, for coming today.
I appreciate Mr. Ziglar taking his busy time to come. As
Commissioner, we know this is very important. There is a lot of
immigration pressures and a lot of different ways, and we
appreciate you, now with the terrorism angle and the narcotics.
And, Mr. Smith, we have worked with the Customs on lots of
different issues, and sometimes the U.S. Marshals Service
doesn't get included in these, and we try to do that wherever
possible, because the other parts can't be executed if the
Marshals Service isn't providing their critical support to
that.
I thank each of you for coming. I ask that Mr. Cummings's
statement be inserted into the record, and we will look forward
to hearing responses to our written questions as well as future
hearings.
With that the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81781.060