Home Legislative Action Congressional Testimony Improving security and Facilitating Commerce at America's Northern Border and Ports of Entry

Improving security and Facilitating Commerce at America's Northern Border and Ports of Entry

5/17/2011

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security of the Committee on Judiciary

---

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, 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 331 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. CBP is also a revenue collection agency, processing approximately 25.8 million trade entries a year at the POEs and collecting an estimated $29 billion in federal revenue in 2009.

LAND PORTS OF ENTRY

The U.S. has more than 4,000 miles of land border with Canada and 1,993 miles of land border with Mexico. Most travelers enter the U.S. through the nation’s 166 land border ports of entry. About two-thirds of travelers are foreign nationals and about one-third are returning U.S. citizens. The vast majority arrive by vehicle. The purpose of the passenger primary inspection process is to determine if the person is a U.S. citizen or alien, and if alien, whether the alien is entitled to enter the U.S. In general, CBP Officers are to question travelers about their nationality and purpose of their visit, whether they have anything to declare, and review the travel documents the traveler is required to present.

Each day CBP Officers inspect more than 1.1 million passengers and pedestrians, including many who reside in border communities who cross legally and contribute to the economic prosperity of our country and our neighbors. At the U.S. land borders, approximately two percent of travelers crossing the border are responsible for nearly 48 percent of all cross-border trips. At the land ports, passenger primary inspections are expected to be conducted in less than one minute. According to CBP, for regular lanes the average inspection time per vehicle is 30 to 45 seconds during which CBP Officers should handle documents for all vehicle occupants and, if necessary, detain and transfer suspected violators to secondary inspection. For FAST truck lanes, the average processing time is 15 to 20 seconds. (“CBP: Challenges and Opportunities” Memo prepared by Armand Peschard-Sverdrup for: Mexico’s Ministry of the Economy: U.S.-Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group. January 2008, page 5.)

In fiscal 2010, CBP Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists at the 331 POEs inspected 352 million travelers and more than 105.8 million conveyances—cars, trucks, buses, trains, vessels and aircraft. Out of the total 331 official POEs, currently only 24 major land POEs are situated on the Mexico-U.S. border: six in California, seven in Arizona, one in New Mexico and ten in Texas. On the Canadian-U.S. border there are 150 land POEs. Land POEs have a series of dedicated lanes for processing commercial traffic, passenger vehicles, pedestrians and in some cases rail crossings.

CBP STAFFING AT THE PORTS OF ENTRY

In October 2009, the Southwest Border Task Force, created by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, presented the results of its staffing and resources review in a draft report. This draft report recommends the “federal government should hire more Customs [and Border Protection] officers.” The report echoes the finding of the Border-Facilitation Working Group. (The U.S.–Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group was created during the bilateral meeting between President George W. Bush and President Felipe Calderon held in Merida in March 2007.) “In order to more optimally operate the various ports of entry, CBP needs to increase the number of CBP Officers. According to its own estimate, the lack of human resources only for the San Ysdiro POE is in the “hundreds” and the CBP Officer need at all ports of entry located along the border with Mexico is in the “thousands.” (“CBP: Challenges and Opportunities” a memo prepared by Armand Peschard-Sverdrup for Mexico’s Ministry of the Economy: U.S.-Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group, January 2008, pages 1 and 2.)

The Administration’s FY 2012 budget requests funds for 21,186 CBP Officer positions--an increase of 409 over FY2011, but still 108 officers below the FY 2009 level of 21,294 CBP Officer positions. NTEU is disappointed that the FY 2012 budget request includes no significant increase in frontline CBP Officer or CBP Agriculture Specialist positions. After a net decrease of over 500 CBP Officer positions between 2009 and 2011, the Administration is only seeking appropriated funding to “support 300 CBP Officers above the FY 2011 Budget and additional canine assets to the Port of Entry operations,” despite independent studies that state that CBP is understaffed at ports of entry by thousands of officers.

Of particular concern to NTEU in the Administration’s FY 2012 budget request, is the decrease of $20 million in funding for inspectional overtime at the air, land and sea ports of entry. CBP states that “proposed efficiency will require POE[s] to reduce overtime spending during periods of increased workload, including but not limited to, the annual peak summer seasons at our Nation’s air and seaports.”

Overtime is essential when staffing levels are low to ensure that inspectional duties can be fulfilled, that officers have sufficient back-up and that wait times are mitigated. This is one reason why Congress authorized a dedicated funding source to pay for overtime-- customs user fees pursuant to Title 19, section 58c (f) of the U.S. Code. CBP collects user fees to recover certain costs incurred for processing, among other things, air and sea passengers, and various private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments.

The source of these user fees are commercial vessels, commercial vehicle, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, air passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail, customs broker and barge/bulk carriers. These fees are deposited into the Customs User Fee Account. User Fees are designated by statute to pay for services provided to the user, such as inspectional overtime for passenger and commercial vehicle inspection during overtime shift hours. In addition, APHIS user fees and immigration user fees also fund “fee-related” inspection costs. User fees have not been increased in years and some of these user fees cover only a portion of recoverable fee-related costs. For example, CBP collects the extraordinarily low fee of $437 at arrival of a commercial vessel to a port to recover personnel and other costs to process and inspect the vessel’s crew and cargo. This fee, however, is capped at $5955 per calendar year; no matter how many times the commercial vessel enters a port that year. This fee was last raised from $397 to $437 in 2007, but the cap has remained at $5955 since 1986. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $19.9 million in Commercial Vessel user fees, but the actual cost of Commercial Vessel inspections in FY 2010 was $33.6 million.

Another example of an extraordinarily low user fee is the fee paid by railcar owners of $8.25 per car at arrival for processing and inspection, but the fee is capped at $100 per railcar per calendar year. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $8.6 million in rail car user fees, but the actual cost of rail car inspections in FY 2010 was $18.9 million.

And Commercial Vehicles pay only $5.50 per vehicle at arrival for processing and inspection, but the fee is capped at $100 per vehicle per calendar year. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $13.7 million in Commercial Vehicle user fees, but the actual cost of Commercial Vehicle inspections in FY 2010 was over $113.7 million.

CBP is seeking legislation to lift the exemption of passengers arriving from Canada, Mexico, most of the Caribbean Islands and U.S. territories from payment of the $5.50 per arrival fee for air and sea traveler processing and inspection. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $290.7 million in Air Passenger user fees, but the actual cost of Air Passenger inspections in FY 2010 was over $512 million. NTEU supports lifting these user fee exemptions allowing CBP to more fully recover the costs of passenger processing and inspection, but believes that Congress should review all user fees collected by CBP with an eye to more fully recovering CBP’s costs of these services to the user.

One example on how the lack of user fee revenue inhibits CBP enforcement in a maritime environment is in the state of Maine that has approximately 5300 actual miles of seacoast exposed to the Atlantic Ocean when taking into account all of Maine’s seacoast inlets and islands. CBP has determined that it will send only one officer to conduct inspections of private – and often, commercial – vessels as a means to reduce cost and avoid overtime. In many cases, a lone CBP Officer is required to approach and enter vessels having numerous persons, weapons, and other unknown factors on board. A solo boarding Officer is unable to conduct any cargo or personnel inspections, due to the size of the vessel, the number or persons aboard, or the need to enter confined spaces. Everything from private vessels to oil tankers are not properly inspected due to CBP not sending a sufficient number of Officers to do so.

In order to properly inspect vessels--private, commercial, or aircraft--a CBP Officer needs to properly check manifests, product labeling, country of origin, and so forth, to assure regulatory compliance, proper collection of fees, assessment of penalties, and rejection of non-compliant cargo. Should a CBP Officer conducting an inspection solo detect a radiation source on a vessel, they have no means to secure the vessel, its personnel, and conduct proper inspections, notifications, or contact support services for isotope identification. Nationwide, the private vessel program operates on the “honor system” and serves little purpose as a deterrent to illegal entry or the importation or exportation of contraband, WMD, terrorist activity, or undocumented personnel.

CHALLENGES WITH FACILITATING LEGAL TRADE VS. STOPPING ILLICIT FLOW OF MONEY, GUNS AND DRUGS

Cross-border commercial operators are acutely concerned about wait times and costs of delay at the land POEs. Wait times differ across POEs and vary depending on whether the congestion involves pedestrians, passenger vehicles, trucks or railcars and whether the ports participate in expedited crossing programs such as SENTRI for people or FAST (Free and Secure Trade) lanes for trucks and railcars that are certified as compliant with the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) agreement. Wait times also vary with the day of the week and the time of day and holidays on either side of the border. Currently, not all available lanes are staffed to capacity. Antiquated port infrastructure and CBP personnel staffing shortages contribute directly to wait times at the land POEs.

NTEU believes that there is no way you can speed up the inspection process in which CBP Officers are currently conducting primary inspections in 30 to 40 seconds without increasing staffing. NTEU’s position was confirmed by the October 2009 draft report of the Southwest Border Task Force created by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that recommends the “federal government should hire more Customs [and Border Protection] officers.”

In 2007, in a GAO report entitled Border Security: Despite Progress, Weaknesses in Traveler Inspections Exist at Our Nation’s Ports of Entry (GAO-08-219), GAO found that:

• CBP needs several thousand additional CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists at its ports of entry.

• Not having sufficient staff contributes to morale problems, fatigue, and safety issues for CBP Officers.

• Staffing challenges force ports to choose between port operations and providing training.

• CBP’s onboard staffing level is below budgeted levels, partly due to high attrition, with ports of entry losing officers faster than they can hire replacements.

The conclusions of this report echo what NTEU has been saying for years and, in order to assess CBP Officer and CBP Agriculture Specialists staffing needs, Congress, in its FY 07 DHS appropriations conference report, directed CBP to submit by January 23, 2007 a resource allocation model for current and future year staffing requirements.

In July 2007, CBP provided GAO with the results of the staffing model. The GAO reported that “the model’s results showed that CBP would need up to several thousand additional CBP officers and agricultural specialists at its ports of entry.” (See GAO-08-219, page 31) And the Washington Post reported that “the agency needs 1,600 to 4,000 more officers and agricultural specialists at the nation's air, land and sea ports, or a boost of 7 to 25 percent.” (November 6, 2007)

The staffing model reinforces the findings of the Border Facilitation Working Group--“when you look at the budgets that are normally handed out to CBP to POEs, one can conclude that this unit has been traditionally under-funded.” See “CBP: Challenges and Opportunities” page 1. Memo prepared by Armand Peschard-Sverdrup for: Mexico’s Ministry of the Economy: U.S.-Mexico Border Facilitation Working Group. January 2008. To date, however, it is NTEU’s understanding that CBP’s POE staffing model has not been made public or even available for Congress to review.

IMPACT OF STAFFING SHORTAGES

According to GAO, "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 backup 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.)

Staffing shortages have also reduced the number of CBP Officers available to conduct more in depth secondary inspections. In the past, there were three inspectors in secondary processing for every one inspector in primary processing. Now there is a one to one ratio. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of illegal cargo seizures. For example, at the Port of Sweet Grass, Montana, from 2000 through 2007, there has been a 59% reduction in the number of seizures of illegal drugs, hazardous imports and other contraband. Port-by-port seizure data is deemed law enforcement sensitive and it is now very difficult to compare number of seizures at a port from year to year.

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 this type of search will then take well over an hour.

Finally, NTEU has been told that when wait times in primary inspection becomes excessive in the opinion of the agency, CBP Officers are instructed to query only one occupant of a vehicle and to suspend COMPEX (Compliance Enforcement Exams) and other automated referral to secondary programs during these periods. This is an improvement over the past practice of lane flushing, but is still a significant security issue. Also, when primary processing lanes become backed up, passenger vehicles are diverted to commercial lanes for processing.

PORTS OF ENTRY AT THE NORTHERN BORDER

Each year, 45 million vehicles cross into the United States from Canada. Most of the trucks, however, use only 22 principal border crossings and by 2020, the volume of truck traffic is projected to grow to 19.2 million per year, an increase of 63% from 11.8 million in1999. The six highest-volume crossings on the Canada-U.S. border handled almost 90%of the value and three-quarters of the tonnage and truck trips. According to the most recent data NTEU has, the six highest U.S.-Canada POEs are Ambassador Bridge (Detroit, Michigan), Peace Bridge (Buffalo, New York), Blue Water Bridge (Michigan), Lewiston-Queenston Bridge (New York), Blaine (Washington), and Champlain (New York). (Truck Freight Crossing the Canada-U.S. Border, September 2002, page 2, 6.)

Preventing the flow of arms, drugs, other contraband, pirated merchandise, and undeclared cash, and invasive agricultural items, while at the same time facilitating trade and the legal movement of people as efficiently as possible is a daily challenge for CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists at the land POEs on the northern border.

STAFFING SHORTAGES AT NORTHERN BORDER LAND PORTS OF ENTRY

Maine: NTEU has heard of several examples of how staffing shortages affect land ports in Maine that has 293 miles of densely wooded land border with Quebec, Canada. Along this expanse are the so-called “Woods Ports” that handle hundreds of vehicles a day. At the Woods Ports of St. Juste, St. Zacharie, St. Aurelie, St. Pamphile, and Estcourt Station only one CBP Officer staffs a shift. This one CBP Officer staffing violates CBP policy and standard law enforcement assignment practices, prohibits any secondary inspections, places CBP Officers in extreme danger, and endangers our national security. With help in some cases two hours away, a lone CBP Officer confronted by terrorists or other illegal persons attempting to enter the U.S., has little opportunity to prevail. Nor can a lone Officer conduct required monitoring of potential absconders, make ENFORCE entries, or perform many of the other duties that CBP requires.

Vermont: There has not been a new hire in over two years at the ports of entry in Vermont. Ten percent fewer CBP Officers in Vermont are now processing 18 percent more trucks, 40 percent more buses, 22 percent more car, 20 percent more trains and 18 percent more commercial entries. All of this is being accomplished with at least 25 percent less overtime and without the adequate resources to properly defend our country, such as stop sticks, electronic control gates or a dedicated enforcement team.

New York: At the Champlain Port of Entry, staffing is always an issue, especially for CBP Technicians that do a lot of the CBP Officers’ clerical work in order to free up Officers to do exams. There is a great deal of difficulty hiring and retaining technicians because their pay is capped at a GS-7 and they seek to move up. There is also a need for more canine teams to examine shipments and dedicated outbound teams.

In Buffalo, CBP management is constantly pulling CBP Officers from various areas to open auto primary inspection lanes. CBP Officers are pulled from areas such as VACIS (a vehicle X-ray machine) and the back scanner van (ZBV). CBP then reports that there are no "targets" while these VACIS and ZBV Officers work a primary inspection lane. On a daily basis, the ZBV CBP Officer crew will be dispersed to attend to primary inspection activities and, rather than stating in the daily report that “ZBV staffing used on primary", managers write "no available targets". Therefore, in Buffalo, whenever any CBP report states "no available targets", CBP Officers were, in actuality, being diverted to work in primary.

Michigan: In Detroit, CBP Officer staffing is below “Peak” resulting in CBP Officers working multiple hours (more than half their shift) on primary--leaving fewer Officers in secondary to perform searches. Also, Officers are pulled from dedicated assignments to supplement primary operations. Hand in hand with staffing is training. In Detroit, there is not enough staff to cover CBP Officers sent to training, so the Port doesn’t send Officers to training.

Minnesota: There is a shortage of frontline personnel at the smaller ports of entry in northern Minnesota. There are a number of them that, through attrition, have gone down by one CBP Officer. This means that in order to keep those ports staffed at two officers per shift, management needs to send Officers from other ports to cover for days off, annual leave, sick leave, etc. This in turn reduces staffing at other ports of entry, such as the one at Warroad, MN. For example, if the Pine Creek or Roseau Port of Entry is short staffed, management will call the Warroad Port of Entry to send an Officer over to fill in at Pine Creek or Roseau. This leaves the Warroad Port of Entry shorthanded if a situation arises.

There has been a significant increase in traffic at the International Falls POE over the past couple of years, yet staffing levels have continued to decrease and within the next five year, it is estimated that 10 percent of the current CBP staff for International Falls will be eligible to retire. At the Port of Grand Portage, there is a desperate need for an outbound booth. At present, CBP officer are standing in the highway with traffic cones as their only measure of safety.

Not only is there a lack of personnel, there is also a lack of overtime funds to pay to keep CBP Officers on duty. At the Minnesota northern land ports, Officers don't mind working the extra hours and many would welcome the opportunity to work overtime.

North Dakota: There is also a shortage of frontline personnel at North Dakota smaller ports of entry. Many of the 15 small ports of entry have also been reduced by one CBP Officer. This again means that in order to keep those ports staffed at two officers per shift they also need to send officers from other ports to cover for days off, annual leave, sick leave, etc. This in turn reduces staffing at the larger ports. The large land border ports in North Dakota are Portal, Dunseith, and Pembina. These three ports support the other 15 when they are short handed.

Attrition, caused primarily by retirements, is high in North Dakota, but a number of people just move on to other jobs. Others quit because they could not get a transfer back to their home area and had family there that they wanted to be with. North Dakota is also experiencing an "oil boom" and the wages are very competitive. CBP employees have resigned to work in the oil patch. Right now the only way the Pembina service port gets a new additional body is for someone at a pre-flight airport in Canada to select a port in North Dakota to return to.

Montana: The Port of Sweetgrass has seen a reduction of 11 frontline CBP Officer positions since January 1, 2010. The Port has also experienced the loss of a CBP Technician position which remains unfilled. The Port of Sweetgrass processes approximately 130,000 commercial trucks per year. And, with the Canadian dollar at a high level, the volume of persons arriving at the Port of Sweetgrass has increased as well.

Also, the Port has recently added a rail VACIS (vehicle X-ray machine) system located three miles from the Port of Sweetgrass, but there is no video surveillance system at this location. The Port needs video cameras to be installed at this location for the Officers’ safety, as well as a security enhancement.

Washington: At the Blaine Cargo facility, neither the VACIS, nor the exit gate, are operated after midnight due to staffing shortages. Both of these operations are vital to the inspection of goods and the prevention of “port runners”. The truck drivers know that these operations are restricted after midnight and if a driver were to contemplate smuggling (narcotics, weapons, etc.) then he/she would do it on this shift due to the lack of manpower and resources.

At the Peace Arch, there are not enough frontline personnel to fully staff this enlarged facility. If all 10 lanes are opened for the traveling public, Officers must abandon the work stations inside. Therefore, when all the lanes are opened up for vehicle traffic, the lines inside the building grow to two hour waits. Since the Situation Room reports are only triggered when the vehicle lines are over 1 hour, there is no report even though the people who are being processed inside are being made to wait excessively. At that point, vehicle lanes are closed and the Officers move inside to facilitate the lines of people, resulting in vehicle lines backing up over the 1 hour wait time limit.

These are just a few examples of CBP staffing shortages at the northern border. Again, NTEU concurs with the October 2009 Homeland Security Advisory Council Southwest Border Task Force Draft Report that calls on Congress to authorize funding to increase staffing levels for CBP Officers. NTEU urges Congress to authorize and appropriate funding for CBP Officers and CBP Agriculture Specialists at the levels specified in CBP’s own workforce staffing model.

CBP AGRICULTURE SPECIALIST STAFFING

In 2008, NTEU was certified as the labor union representative of CBP Agriculture Specialists as the result of an election to represent all Customs and Border Protection employees that had been consolidated into one bargaining unit by merging the port of entry inspection functions of Customs, INS and the Animal and Plant Inspection Service as part of DHS’ One Face at the Border initiative.

According to GAO-08-219 page 31, CBP’s staffing model “showed that CBP would need up to several thousand additional CBP Officers and agriculture specialists at its ports of entry.” And GAO testimony issued on October 3, 2007 stated that, “as of mid-August 2007, CBP had 2,116 agriculture specialists on staff, compared with 3,154 specialists needed, according to staffing model.” (See GAO-08-96T page 1.)

CBP FY 2012 budget request includes funding for 2,394 CBP Agriculture Specialists, 760 short of those needed, according to CBP’s own staffing model. Also, according to CBP, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) user fees fund 2,332 of these 2,394 CBP Agriculture Specialists regular positions.

Also, NTEU continues to have concerns with CBP’s stated intention to change its staffing model design to reflect only allocations of existing resources and no longer account for optimal staffing levels to accomplish their mission.

Finally, NTEU strongly supports Section 805 of S. 3623, a bill introduced in the Senate in 2009 that, through oversight and statutory language, makes clear that the agricultural inspection mission is a priority. The legislation increases CBP Agriculture Specialist staffing, and imposes an Agriculture Specialist career ladder and specialized chain of command.

RATIO OF CBP SUPERVISORS TO FRONTLINE CBP OFFICERS

NTEU continues to have concerns that CBP is continuing to increase the number of supervisors when a much greater need exists for new frontline hires. In terms of real numbers, since CBP was created, the number of new managers has increased at a much higher rate than the number of new frontline CBP hires. According to GAO, the number of CBP Officers has increased from 18,001 in October 2003 to 18,382 in February 2006, an increase of 381 officers. In contrast, GS 12-15 CBP supervisors on board as of October 2003 were 2,262 and in February 2006 there were 2,731, an increase of 462 managers over the same of time. This is a 17 percent increase in CBP managers and only a 2 percent increase in the number of frontline CBP Officers. (See GAO-06-751R, page 11).

In Maine, for example, the current ratio is approximately 1 to 8 of management to frontline employees. Despite the tremendous increase in supervision and management, at all but three major Maine ports of entry, the port directors and supervisors continue to work only day and evening shifts and refuse to staff midnight shifts, instead instructing officers who need assistance to call one of the three major ports if a supervisory decision or action is required.

In 2009, CBP reports that there were 19,726 CBP Officers of which 16,360 were bargaining unit frontline employees--a ratio of one supervisor for every five CBP Officers. And according to CBP data, in 2009, the number of CBP Agriculture Specialists was 2,277, of which 312 were non-frontline supervisors--a ratio of one supervisor for every six CBP Agriculture Specialists. The tremendous growth in CBP managers and supervisors at the POEs has come at the expense of front line national security preparedness and frontline positions. Also, these highly paid management positions are exacting a needless level of expense upon the CBP budget.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ISSUES

NTEU is pleased to commend Congress and the Department for addressing two major CBP Officer recruitment and retention challenges—lack of law enforcement officer retirement status and a lower rate of journeyman pay than most other federal law enforcement occupations. In July 2006, Congress extended enhanced retirement prospectively to CBP Officers and in October 2009, CBP announced an increase in the rate of CBP Officer and CBP Agriculture Specialists journeyman pay from GS-11 to GS-12.

According to GAO, however, up to 1,200 CBP Officers a year are lost to attrition and current hires are not keeping pace with this attrition rate. NTEU expects that the extension of enhanced retirement and increasing journeyman pay will help to attract and recruit new hires to keep pace with attrition and achieve staffing levels currently authorized. Since it usually takes about 1 1/2 years to recruit, hire and train a CBP Officer, however, Congress needs to increase CBP Officer staffing levels now to keep pace with current attrition rates.

NTEU commends the Department for increasing journeyman pay for CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists. Many deserving CBP trade and security positions, however, were left out of this pay increase, which has significantly damaged morale. NTEU strongly supports extending this same career ladder increase to additional CBP positions, including CBP trade operations specialists and CBP Seized Property Specialists. The journeyman pay level for the CBP Technicians who perform important commercial trade and administration duties should also be increased from GS-7 to GS-9.

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES

“The average land POE is 40–45 years old. Urban sprawl has enveloped some of these ports, rendering them effectively landlocked…Over time, eroding infrastructure and limits on the availability of land – along with projected growth in the legal movement of goods and people stemming from the continued deepening of economic integration – will require both governments to erect new infrastructure.” (See Facilitating Legal Commerce and Transit by Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, page 4).

Infrastructure issues vary from port to port. NTEU does not dispute that the infrastructure problems at the POEs need to be addressed. But all port infrastructure solutions, including constructing additional 24 hour port facilities, will take years to achieve. What is necessary today is to staff all existing lanes and to start now to recruit additional personnel to staff proposed new lanes to capacity. Without adequate staffing to achieve this, excessive overtime practices, as well as increased wait times, will continue.

Also, the observations and suggestions of frontline CBP Officers should be taken into account when planning new infrastructure solutions. For example, since before 9/11, the lack of a manned egress point for the Cargo Inspection facility at the Port of Blaine, Washington has been noted by numerous port runner incidents. After years of lobbying by Officers, Blaine has a manned egress booth, but it is not staffed 24/7, and the CBP Officer assigned to the exit booth has no way to physically stop a vehicle and driver who want to run the port. There are no gates, no tire shredders, or deployable bollards at the new egress point. Pulling into secondary is still largely dependent on the honor system. This new manned egress point intercepts the lost drivers, and the drivers who can’t understand instructions from the primary officer, but it doesn't stop deliberate port runners.

TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

Customs and Border Protection relies on technology to process border crossings both inbound and outbound with greater efficiency and speed. To compensate for the inadequacy of personnel at land POEs, CBP is relying more on technology, such as Radiation Portal Monitors (RPM) and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). According to GAO, however, “as of March 2011, license plate readers were available at 48 of 118 outbound lanes on the southwest border but none of the 179 outbound lanes on the northern border.” (DHS Progress and Challengers in Security the U.S. Southwest and Northern Borders, GAO-11-508T, page 7.)

Technological advances are important, but without the training and experience, technology alone would have failed to stop the millennium bomber at Port Angeles, Washington. Today, primary processing is increasingly dependent on technology. CBP Officers are instructed to clear vehicles within thirty seconds. That is just enough time to run the license through the plate reader and check identifications on a data base. If the documents are in order the vehicle is waived through. The majority of a CBP Officers’ time is spent processing I-94s, documents non-resident aliens need to enter the U.S.

Also, technology improvements can’t overcome deficiencies in equipment and in port infrastructure. For example, DHS recently touted as a money-saving effort the transferring excess IT equipment within the Department rather than buying new equipment. NTEU has learned that at the El Paso cargo facility, CBP Officers “barely get by with the old computers” they inherited three months ago when the facility received newer, yet used, computers handed down from the CBP training facility in Artesia, NM. It is questionable if this practice is efficient or effective.

Also, expedited inspection programs, such as FAST, work very well for the participants in these programs in that their clearance process is reduced. CBP, however, needs a higher level of verification of FAST participants because of the higher risk their expedited clearance creates. For example, at the Blaine POE, many of CBP Officer’s narcotics seizures have come out of FAST approved Carriers and Consignees. Expedited inspection programs such as FAST and C-TPAT, require additional CBP Officers to conduct these verifications.

Finally, NTEU is closely monitoring the contemplated expansion of the Global Entry kiosk technology that is being piloted at the international airports and urges the Committee to also do so. It is our understanding that CBP plans to expand this program beyond U.S., Mexican nationals with a border crossing card, Canadian and Dutch citizens, and Legal Permanent Residents to additional countries, such as the U.K., South Korea, Germany and Japan and to holders of other visas types, such as holders of L1 (non-immigrant work visas) and E1 (treaty trader visitor) of various countries. Also, holders of F1 and J1 (students/researchers and their immediate family) from Holland are now eligible to apply for the Global Entry card. Please note that a Global Entry card holder never has to talk to a CBP Officer upon entering the U.S. from abroad (unless they are randomly chosen by COMPEX for a mandatory random check)—instead they are processed by an automated Global Entry kiosk, pick up their luggage and go directly to an airport exit without any interaction with CBP inspection officials.

NTEU also has concerns about the reported reduction of the time allotted for interviews of applicants for Global Entry cards by CBP Officers, the loosening of the vetting process to allow some individuals with misdemeanor convictions to be eligible, and the automatic enrollment of Global Entry cards to NEXUS card holders and the exemption of these card holders of the $100 processing fee—a fee that does not nearly cover the cost of processing the application and staffing the vetting, interviewing and issuance of these cards in this time of fiscal constraints. And Global Entry cards are good for five years.

NTEU RECOMMENDATIONS

As noted by DHS’s own Advisory Council, for too long, CBP at the POEs has been unfunded and understaffed. This is true for CBP Ports of Entry at the both the northern and southern border. DHS employees represented by NTEU are capable and committed to the varied missions of the agency from border control to the facilitation of trade into and out of the United States. The American public expects its borders and ports be properly defended.

Congress must show the public that it is serious about protecting the homeland by:

• increasing both port security and trade enforcement staffing at the Ports of Entry to the level recommended by the draft September 2009 Homeland Security Advisory Council Report and Recommendations;

• fully staffing all existing lanes and booths at the POEs to capacity;

• extending career ladder pay increases to additional CBP personnel including CBP trade operations specialists, CBP Seized Property Specialists and CBP Technicians;

• Ensuring that CBP Officers’ and Agriculture Specialists’ overtime and premium pay system is fully funded; and

• requiring CBP to submit a yearly workplace staffing model that include optimal staffing requirements for each POE to fully staff all lanes and reduce wait times.

The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by the NTEU are proud of their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe from drugs and our economy safe from illegal trade. 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.