[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AUTHORIZING CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER
AND MARITIME SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 8, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-782 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Filemon Vela, Texas
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Eric Swalwell, California
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Vacancy
Steve Daines, Montana Vacancy
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Vacancy
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER AND MARITIME SECURITY
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Chairwoman
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Loretta Sanchez, California
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Vacancy
Vacancy Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Paul L. Anstine, II, Subcommittee Staff Director
Deborah Jordan, Subcommittee Clerk
Alison Northrop, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Candice S. Miller, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Michigan, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Border and Maritime Security................................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Border and Maritime Security................................... 3
Witnesses
Mr. Kevin K. Mcaleenan, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 10
Mr. Daniel H. Ragsdale, Acting Director, Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 10
For the Record
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Border and Maritime Security:
Statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National
Treasury Employees Union..................................... 4
AUTHORIZING CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Duncan, Jackson Lee,
Sanchez, and O'Rourke.
Mrs. Miller. Good morning. The Committee on Homeland
Security, the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will
come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today formally to
examine the need to formally authorize the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and also the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
Our two witnesses today are, first of all, Kevin McAleenan.
We welcome you back to the committee. He is the acting deputy
commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Daniel
Ragsdale, we welcome you as well. He is the deputy director of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I will more formally
recognize them in just a moment.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement are two of the largest
Federal law enforcement agencies in the Government. Though is
hard to believe, neither one of them has ever been formally
authorized by the Congress into law, since the creation of
Homeland Security over 12 years ago. So for more than a decade,
these two agencies have existed apart from explicit statutory
authority which other agencies of the Federal Government
routinely receive.
To that end, myself and the Ranking Member have introduced
H.R. 3846 and also H.R. 4279, the United States Customs and
Border Protection Authorization Act and the United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Authorization Act,
respectively. These bills represent the first attempt by the
Congress since the Homeland Security Act was enacted to clearly
delineate the current authorities and responsibilities of the
these two vital agencies which fall within the Department of
Homeland Security. As the committee of primary jurisdiction
over CBP and ICE, we are responsible not only for oversight of
the agencies under their purview, of course, but also for the
policy guidance to the Department as a whole to furnish the
agencies with the proper authorities to carry out their
mission.
The fact that these agencies have been operating for as
long as they have without statutorily mandating what Congress
and the American people expect from CBP and from ICE is a
problem we think that needs to be corrected. The Homeland
Security Act--again, nearly 12 years old--reflects the choices
made by Congress at the time to cobble 22 different agencies
together very quickly. The provisions of the act do not fully
address all of the authorities and current security missions of
either ICE or CBP, which have significantly evolved over the
last decade. In addition, the Homeland Security Act does not
accurately reflect the current organization of the Department.
For example, most of the authority for the work that ICE
and CBP now perform was vested in a position called the under
secretary of border and transportation security. If you haven't
heard of it lately, that is because it was eliminated by then-
Secretary Chertoff in 2005. Nonetheless, the position remains
in law. The legislation we are discussing today is the first
step in fixing outdated provisions from the source legislation
that created the Department.
Both agencies continue to rely on very vague authority
given to the secretary or to the Homeland Security offices,
like the Border and Transportation directorate that no longer
exists. Certainly that is not a sustainable way to run two of
the premier Federal law enforcement agencies, especially ones
that are so critical to National security. For example, the
Office of the United States Border Patrol is referenced only
briefly in the Homeland Security Act, and ICE is not mentioned
at all.
Congressional policy guidance and direction through the
authorization process is long overdue, and certainly we believe
we should begin, as the bills that we have introduced do, by
authorizing ICE and CBP's current missions the way that the
Department currently operates and then build on that foundation
over time.
These bills specifically authorize each major component of
the respective agencies to accomplish that goal. In the case of
CBP, we authorize the specific functions of the Office of Field
Operations, United States Border Patrol Office of Air and
Marine, the Office of Intelligence and Investigative Liaison,
and the Office of Internal Affairs.
When it comes to ICE, we authorize the Office of Homeland
Security Investigations, Office of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, and the Office of Professional Responsibility. The
legislation also recognizes the lead role that ICE plays in
administering the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination
Center and the Export Enforcement Coordination Center. Once we
have established a firm statutory foundation, then we can
begin--as other committees do--to regularly authorize key parts
of the Department every Congress, which reflect the committee's
priorities.
Finally, it is well-known that the Committee on Homeland
Security has some serious jurisdictional challenges. You only
need to look at the multiple committees that received referrals
to these bills as a case in point. However, we cannot let
jurisdictional hurdles be an impediment to the work that is the
core of this committee's purpose: Authorizing the agencies that
fall under the DHS umbrella.
So I certainly want to thank the Ranking Member for her
support for both of these bills. I also want to commend the
work and assistance that both CBP and ICE provided as we
started the difficult tasks of cleaning up the Homeland
Security Act to give the proper authorities to these two
agencies and to the men and women who are charged with
protecting the homeland. Again, we appreciate the witnesses. I
will formally introduce them in just a moment.
But at this time, the Chairwoman recognizes the Ranking
Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee, for any statement that she may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me acknowledge Ms. Sanchez of California and Mr. O'Rourke
of Texas, who are also present here this morning. Thank the
witnesses for your presence this morning and for the work,
great work, that you do. I am delighted to join with the
Chairwoman, as Ranking Member, in also affirming the importance
of a reauthorization and authorization legislation, which
really is a road map and gives the kind of infrastructure to
the work that is so ably being done and allows us to work
closely on issues that will better enhance the service that
both United States Customs and Border Protection and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement are able to give on behalf
of this Nation.
Enacting such legislation is long overdue. Authorizing
legislation for these agencies has not been updated since the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 established CBP and ICE within
the Department of Homeland Security. I have been here long
enough to have been part of that process and part of the
organizing process of the actual Homeland Security Department,
the merger of so many different agencies and, certainly, this
committee. Neither component is authorized in law as it stands
in its current form.
While the law has not been updated, the world has continued
to turn. Today, CBP is one of the largest components within
DHS, with 60,000 dedicated employees committed to securing and
administering our Nation's borders. I also recognize that for
those of us who have spent many a day, or hours, at the
border--both Southern and Northern Border--we see the
variations of service of those who work with CBP. We have heard
their concerns, we have heard their descriptions of their work
and their needs. I believe it is very important now to hone in
on all the work and the workers, and to be able to provide an
authorization bill that responds to some of their concerns, as
well.
With that in mind, I would like to offer into the record,
Madam Chairwoman, a statement by the National Treasury
Employees Union, NTEU--the president is Colleen M. Kelly,
national president--responding to the issue of the needs that
they have with respect to the staffing issues that are so very
important. I ask unanimous consent to put this into the record.
Mrs. Miller. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
April 8, 2014
Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, 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 stationed at 329 land, sea, and air ports of entry (POEs)
across the United States.
NTEU applauds the committee for introducing a bill authorizing the
establishment of CBP, recognizing it as America's front-line border
security agency, responsible for protecting the American people from
the entry of dangerous goods and people, while at the same time
facilitating legal trade and travel. NTEU also applauds the fiscal year
2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Omnibus), recognized that there
is no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and travel efficiency than
the lack of sufficient staff at the ports.
Understaffed ports lead to long delays in our commercial lanes as
cargo waits to enter U.S. commerce. NTEU strongly supported the fiscal
year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill that provided funding to hire an
additional 2,000 new CBP Officers by the end of fiscal year 2015 at the
air, sea, and land ports of entry. NTEU also strongly supports the
administration's legislative proposal in its fiscal year 2015 budget
request to fund the hiring of an additional 2,000 CBP Officers--
bringing the total number of CBP Officers to 25,775--paid for by an
increase in customs and immigration user fees. This increase is
supported by CBP's fiscal year 2014 Resource Optimization at Ports of
Entry Report to Congress which includes the results of the Workforce
Staffing Model that identifies a pre-Omnibus need for 3,811 new CBP
Officers. It is important that the committee authorize funding for
these additional 2,000 CBP Officers in fiscal year 2015 and beyond in
H.R. 3846.
For years, NTEU has maintained that delays at the ports result in
real losses to the U.S. economy. According to the U.S. Department of
the Treasury, more than 50 million Americans work for companies that
engage in international trade and, according to a recent University of
Southern California study, ``The Impact on the Economy of Changes in
Wait Times at the Ports of Entry'', dated April 4, 2013, for every
1,000 CBP Officers added, the United States can increase its gross
domestic product by $2 billion, which equates to 33 new private-sector
jobs per CBP Officer added.
NTEU strongly supports the increase in the immigration and customs
user fees by $2.00 each to fund the hiring of an additional 2,000 CBP
Officers in fiscal year 2015, but recognize that this increase may not
be approved by Congress. 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 vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private
vessels, air passengers, sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers,
dutiable mail, customs brokers, and barge/bulk carriers. These fees are
deposited into the Customs User Fee Account. Customs 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. User fees have not been increased in years
and some of these user fees cover only a portion of recoverable fee-
related costs. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $13.7 million in
Commercial Vehicle user fees, but the actual cost of Commercial Vehicle
inspections in fiscal year 2010 was over $113.7 million--a $100 million
shortfall.
Increasing the immigration inspection user fee by $2 will allow CBP
to better align air passenger inspection fee revenue with the costs of
providing immigration inspection services. According to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) (GAO-12-464T, page 11), fee collections
available to ICE and CBP to pay for costs incurred in providing
immigration inspection services totaled about $600 million in fiscal
year 2010, however, ``air passenger immigration fees collections did
not fully cover CBP's costs in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010.''
Despite an increase in appropriated funding in fiscal years 2014
and 2015 for an additional 2,000 CBP Officers, CBP will still face
staffing shortages in fiscal year 2015 and beyond. If Congress is
serious about job creation, then Congress should support enactment of
legislation that increases the IUF and COBRA fees by $2.00 each and
adjust both fees annually to inflation. If Congress does not enact the
user-fee increases requested, the needed staffing enhancement must be
funded by discretionary appropriations. This committee should authorize
appropriations to address the on-going CBP Officer staffing shortages
as identified by CBP's Workforce Staffing Model, as well as shortages
of CBP staff in CBP's other vital agriculture and trade inspection and
compliance missions.
agriculture specialist staffing shortage
CBP employees at the ports also perform agriculture inspections to
prevent the entry of animal and plant pests or diseases. The U.S.
agriculture sector is a crucial component of the American economy,
generating over $1 trillion in annual economic activity. According to
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), foreign pests and
diseases cost the American economy tens of billions of dollars
annually. Failure to detect and intercept these non-native pests and
diseases imposes serious economic and social costs on all Americans.
Staffing shortages and lack of mission priority for the critical work
performed by CBP Agriculture Specialists and CBP Technicians assigned
to the ports is a continuing threat to the U.S. economy.
To address CBP Agriculture Specialist staffing shortages at the
ports of entry, NTEU supports funding to hire additional CBP
Agriculture Specialists. We also support GAO recommendations aimed at
more fully aligning Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) fee revenue
with program costs (see GAO-13-268). According to GAO, in fiscal year
2011, CBP incurred 81 percent of total AQI program costs, but received
only 60 percent of fee revenues; whereas the Animal, Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) incurred 19 percent of program costs but
retained 36 percent of the revenues. In other words, APHIS covers all
its AQI costs with AQI fee revenues, while CBP does not. AQI user fees
fund only 62 percent of agriculture inspection costs with a gap of $325
million between costs and revenue. To bridge the resulting gap, CBP
uses its annual appropriation.
NTEU supports CBP's efforts to establish an Agriculture Specialist
Resource Allocation Model to ensure adequate CBP Agriculture Specialist
staffing at the POEs. Release of the Agriculture Specialist Workforce
Staffing Model, initially due at the end of September 2013, however,
has been postponed. NTEU has learned that the Model, when released,
will show a significant staffing shortage at the ports and a need to
hire a significant number of additional CBP Agriculture Specialists.
NTEU requests the committee to authorize in H.R. 3846 funding to hire
additional CBP Agriculture Specialists as specified in the forthcoming
workforce staffing model.
foreign language awards program (flap)
NTEU is strongly opposed to the $16 million cut in the
administration's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal for the Foreign
Language Award Program (FLAP). Established in 1993, FLAP allows
employees who speak and use foreign language skills on the job to
receive a cash award if they use the language for at least 10 percent
of their duties and have passed the competency test. Congress
authorized FLAP as an incentive for CBP Officers and CBP Agriculture
Specialists to learn foreign languages to augment duties at the ports
of entry in order to better serve the traveling public and their
security mission.
Congress understood that these law enforcement officers stationed
at U.S. air, sea, and land ports of entry were in daily direct contact
with international travelers. Facilitation of trade and travel along
with port security is a dual mission of these employees. Not only do
language barriers delay processing of trade and travel at the ports,
for these law enforcement officers, communication breakdowns can be
dangerous. Confusion arises when a non-English speaking person does not
understand the commands of a law enforcement officer. These situations
can escalate quite rapidly if that person keeps moving forward or does
not take their hands out of their pockets when requested.
This incentive program, incorporating more than 2 dozen languages,
has been instrumental in identifying and utilizing CBP employees who
are proficient in a foreign language. At CBP, this program has been an
unqualified success, and not just for employees, but for the travelers
who are aided by having someone at a port of entry who speaks their
language, for the smooth functioning of the agency's security mission.
Congress should be concerned about the impact on the traveling
public and CBP's security mission if this 84% cut in this valuable
program is implemented. In the fiscal year 2013 Senate Homeland
Security Appropriations bill, Congress encouraged CBP to work with
airport authorities to develop a ``welcome ambassador'' program and
cited language within the CBP's fiscal year 2012 Improving Entry
Process for Visitors Report stating, ``[CBPOs are] the first face of
the U.S. Government that travelers see at ports of entry. As a visible
symbol of our Nation, CBP Officers have an important responsibility.''
Incentivizing CBP Officers to attain and maintain competency in a
foreign language through FLAP, not only improves the efficiency of
operations, it makes the United States a more welcoming place when
foreign travelers find CBP Officers can communicate in their language,
and help expedite traveler processing to reduce wait times. In a recent
U.S. Travel Association Traveler Survey, adding entry processing
personnel fluent in foreign languages ranked second in priority--only
surpassed by reducing long lines and wait times.
Pursuant to Title 19, section 58c(f) of the U.S. Code, FLAP is
funded with user fee collections rather than appropriations. A portion
of customs user fees paid by international travelers fund the
availability of CBP personnel with foreign language fluency. It is
clear that by reducing the program from $19 million to $3 million and
reallocating these user fee funds, the incentives available to CBP
Officers will be dramatically reduced. Many Officers will drop out of
this program that requires on-going training and testing to be
eligible. This result will only add to the perception by international
travelers that traveling to the United States is an unwelcoming
experience and one to be avoided.
NTEU urges the committee to include FLAP authorization language in
H.R. 3846 requiring FLAP payments to all eligible CBP employees.
cbp trade operations staffing
CBP has a dual mission of safeguarding our Nation's borders and
ports as well as regulating and facilitating international trade. In
fiscal year 2013, all revenue collected by CBP exceeded $41 billion
with nearly $30 billion of that revenue coming from the collection of
trade duties. Since CBP was established in March 2003, however, there
has been no increase in CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel.
NTEU is concerned that, rather than hiring additional CBP trade
operations personnel, the budget proposes to cut trade operations
positions including Rulings and Regulations staffers who are
responsible for promulgating regulations and rulings, and providing
policy and technical support to CBP, DHS, Treasury, Congress, and the
importing community concerning the application of Customs laws and
regulations.
NTEU urges the committee not to support cuts to CBP trade
operations staff, but to authorize funding to hire additional trade
enforcement and compliance personnel, including Import Specialists, at
the ports of entry to enhance trade revenue collection.
NTEU commends the Department for increasing the 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 and seeks authorizing language in
H.R. 3846 to achieve this goal. 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.
CBP continues to be a top-heavy management organization. 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 front-line CBP
hires. According to CBP's own numbers, the Supervisor-to-front-line-
employee ratio was 1 to 5.9 for the CBP workforce, 1 to 6.1 for CBP
Officers and 1 to 6.9 for CBP Agriculture Specialists.
The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at
the expense of National security preparedness and front-line positions.
Also, these highly-paid management positions are straining the CBP
budget. With the increase of potentially 4,000 CBP Officer new hires,
NTEU urges the committee to require CBP to provide a staffing plan to
return to a more balanced supervisor to front-line employee ration.
NTEU strongly urges Congress to end the sequester. Without
enactment of the Omnibus appropriations bill, the sequester would have
severely restricted CBP's ability to address critical staffing needs at
the ports of entry in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. If Congress doesn't
reverse the Budget Control Act, another round of sequestration will be
devastating to CBP--requiring furloughs and hiring freezes, reducing
services, increasing wait times for trade and travel, and jeopardizing
National security.
recommendations
Additional CBP staff must be authorized to ensure security and
mitigate prolonged wait times for both trade and travel at our Nation's
ports of entry. Therefore, NTEU urges the committee to end the
sequester and include in H.R. 3846:
authorization for an additional 2,000 CBP Officers--bringing
the total staffing number to 25,775;
authorization for an increase in agriculture inspection and
trade enforcement staffing to adequately address increased
agriculture and commercial trade volumes;
authorization of enhanced pay and retirement recognition to
additional CBP personnel, including Import and other Commercial
Operations Specialists, CBP Seized Property Specialists, and
CBP Technicians; and
Language requiring CBP to continue the COBRA user fee
funding for all FLAP eligible CBP employees.
Lastly, NTEU strongly supports legislation to allow CBP to
increase, by $2.00, user fees to help recover costs associated with
fee-funded services and provide funding to hire additional CBP
Officers. We also support including in the extension of the Travel
Promotion Act that provides CBP the authority to collect a fee to fund
the promotion of tourism, a provision requiring that a significant
portion of fees collected be remitted to CBP to provide additional
funding for CBP Officer new hires.
The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of
their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our
neighborhoods safe from drugs and our economy safe from illegal trade,
while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously
through our air, sea, and land ports. These men and women are deserving
of more resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
committee on their behalf.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The agency has a myriad of new
responsibilities, including administering more sophisticated
travel screening programs, expanded trusted traveler
initiatives, and enhanced border security technology. ICE is
DHS's investigative agency, with over 20,000 men and women
enforcing Federal laws governing border control, customs,
trade, and immigration. Their work is also ever more complex,
with investigations related to narcotic smuggling and human
trafficking, in addition to immigration enforcement and other
responsibilities.
I want to thank Mr. Ragsdale and ICE, and the
representative of ICE, for participating in an official
Congressional hearing in Houston, Texas on human trafficking,
which, in that hearing, Houston, Texas was noted as the
epicenter of human trafficking. I appreciate, Madam Chairwoman,
and I--as we proceed on this reauthorization, the work that ICE
is doing around the country to help save lives and to help end
the exploitation of children and women and others in this
deadly devastation, human trafficking, modern-day slavery. So I
wanted to make note of that.
Given the scope and importance of the missions carried out
by CBP and ICE, proper authorizing legislation is essential to
ensuring appropriate staffing and programmatic guidance from
Congress. It is the responsibility of the committee to ensure
such legislation is acted upon. That is why I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of both H.R. 3846, the United States Customs
and Border Protection Authorization, and H.R. 4279, the United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Authorization Act.
I thank the gentlelady from Michigan for working with our
offices and for this bipartisan nature of the discussions
regarding these bills to date, and looking forward to continued
collaboration on the measures as they move through the
legislative process. The bills, as introduced, provide an
excellent basis for discussion today, and a good starting point
for the legislative process.
Many times, the public sees CBP as the guys at the border
and ladies at the border. ICE is seen, in many instances, by
diverse groups--particularly immigrant groups--as the detainers
of individuals, their loved ones, or detainers of those who
have been taken into immigration custody. Their work is vast
and much broader. We must give them the tools to do so. I might
add here, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform that
will, in fact, allow them to have a structure of law that will
ensure that the bad guys are detained, and others who want to
do work have a process to access citizenship.
I look forward to continuing to work together as we move
toward a possible markup. Today, I look forward to hearing from
Members about what provisions they believe need to be included
in legislation authorizing CBP and ICE, and we will be looking
at the record. We are fortunate to have Members on the
Democratic side with a great deal of expertise on border
security matters, whether they represent a border district or
have a long history of work with the subcommittee.
I hope that we will be actively engaged in laying the
groundwork for a possible future markup by questioning the
witnesses on issues relevant to the legislation being
considered, along with a number of other initiatives that I
have introduced. Members' insight will be invaluable as the
legislative processes move forward. I understand that the
administration has not yet taken an official position on either
H.R. 3846 or 4279. However, I hope the witnesses will do their
utmost to offer their insight, opinion, and expertise in
response to Members' questions regarding the bills, as
introduced.
I thank the witnesses for being here, and I am delighted to
join with the Chairwoman on this hearing. I conclude by
indicating to the Chairwoman and to the Members of the this
committee I also have Attorney General Holder in the Judiciary
Committee. At a certain point in this hearing I will be
departing, and ask your indulgence. Thank you for your courtesy
recognizing the overlapping schedule that I have. Thank you so
very much.
I yield back at this time.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentlelady. Other Members of the
committee would be reminded that their opening statements might
be submitted for the record. I will just pick up on one thing
that that the gentlelady mentioned about human trafficking,
which is such a terrible, terrible thing that is happening--as
she mentioned, modern-day slavery, really. Our bill, our
authorization, does authorize ICE to investigate and to look
into human trafficking. So I think that is an important
component.
Again, the Chairwoman is pleased to have two distinguished
witnesses today to discuss our authorizing bills. First of all,
Mr. Kevin McAleenan is the acting deputy commissioner of the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Previously, he was the
acting assistant commissioner for the Office of Field
Operations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, where he was
responsible for overseeing CBP's anti-terrorism, immigration,
anti-smuggling, trade compliance, and agricultural protection
operations at the Nation's 329 ports of entry.
Daniel Ragsdale is the deputy director for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Ragsdale executes oversight of
ICE's day-to-day operations, including approximately 20,000
operation and mission support personnel. The witnesses' full
written statement will appear in the record.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. McAleenan for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN K. MC ALEENAN, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. McAleenan. Good morning, Chairwoman Miller, Ranking
Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the proposed legislation to authorize U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, CBP, and formalize our role in
securing America's borders and facilitating legitimate trade
and travel.
Before I begin, I would like to thank this subcommittee for
its continued support and commitment to CBP. H.R. 3846, the
United States Customs and Border Protection Authorization Act,
would authorize, for the first time, CBP's leadership,
organization, and reporting structures. The bill provides a
solid legislative framework that reflects today's CBP. It
modernizes and clarifies current statute, specifically the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, to remove references and
authorities granted to entities that no longer exist and
entrust them to the commissioner of CBP, where they are
properly lodged.
The authorization bill recognizes the distinct and
important role that CBP, the largest law enforcement agency in
the United States, plays every day in keeping Americans safe.
It recognizes the broad and complex border security, law
enforcement and facilitation missions with which CBP is
charged, and the unique capabilities that the people at CBP
bring to bear to carry them out. Like its mission, CBP's law
enforcement jurisdiction is highly complex and derives
authority from a wide spectrum of Federal statutes.
CBP enforces customs laws related to tariff and revenue
protection, immigration laws related to the admission of
individuals to the United States. Additionally, CBP has been
given the broad mandate to enforce all Federal laws, including
drug, export control, money laundering, and agriculture at the
borders of the United States.
The laws we enforce are vital to ensuring all persons and
cargo entering the United States do so legally and safely
through official ports of entry, preventing the illegal entry
of persons and contraband, promoting the safe and efficient
cross-border flow of commerce, and protecting U.S. business
from harmful and illicit trade activities.
We perform our critical law enforcement mission with three
front-line operational offices: Field operations, U.S. Border
Patrol, and Air and Marine. Operating at 329 ports of entry
across the United States in 16 pre-clearance locations
internationally, CBP's Office of Field Operations plays a vital
role in preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons the
country, and securing and facilitating lawful trade and travel.
Working to interdict high-risk passengers and cargo before they
arrive at our ports of entry, the National Targeting Center
leverages all available advance passenger and cargo information
to detect and deter potentially dangerous persons before they
board an aircraft or vessel, or cargo before it is loaded on a
conveyance destined for the United States.
In between ports of entry, the U.S. Border Patrol prevents
terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals and drug
traffickers from entering the United States, detects and
prevents the smuggling and unlawful entry of undocumented
individuals, and apprehends those found to be in violation of
the immigration laws.
The Office of Air and Marine protects the American people
and the Nation's critical infrastructure through the
coordinated use of Air and Marine forces to detect, interdict,
and prevent the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and
other contraband toward or across our borders.
In addition to its security mission, CBP has direct
responsibility for enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness. The
Office of International Trade coordinates CBP's policies and
strategies to reduce the cost for industry and enforce trade
laws against counterfeit, unsafe, or fraudulently-entered
goods. These offices receive direct operational support from
the Offices of Intelligence and Investigative Liaison,
International Affairs and Internal Affairs. CBP's mission
support offices, as well as our Federal, State, local, Tribal,
international and, critically, our private-sector partners are
also vital contributors toward our mission.
I wish to thank the Members of the subcommittee for your
pursuit of this authorization bill, which reflects the goals of
the 9/11 Commission and the Homeland Security Act to integrate,
streamline, and modernize our Nation's security functions into
a unified force, a strengthened homeland security enterprise,
and a more secure America that is better equipped to confront
the range of threats we face today and in the days to come.
As H.R. 3846 progresses through the legislative process, we
look forward to working with Congress to ensure that CBP
retains the necessary authorities to keep terrorists and their
weapons out of the United States, to secure our borders and to
facilitate international trade and travel.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. McAleenan and Mr.
Ragsdale follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Kevin K. McAleenan and Daniel H. Ragsdale
April 8, 2014
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of the
subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and our efforts in securing America's borders. We
would like to acknowledge and thank this committee for the consistent
support and commitment you have shown to the mission and people of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We appreciate the opportunity to talk about the authorization of
CBP and ICE--two agencies that share a long and rich history. Our roots
date back as far as the 18th Century when the First United States
Congress established the United States Customs Service, operating out
of official U.S. ports of entry (POEs), to be responsible for the
collection of duties on imported goods. In the late 19th Century,
Congress created the Bureau of Animal Industry, which later became the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under the Department
of Agriculture, of which part of their responsibility was to support
inspection activities at POEs. At approximately the same time, Congress
established an immigration office, which later became the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), and placed inspectors at major POEs
to process immigrants seeking admission to the United States, and to
collect a tax on all individuals admitted. Soon after, responding to a
need to secure the borders between inspection stations, Congress
established the Border Patrol.
Congress created DHS in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,
attacks, and in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
With the passage of the Homeland Security Act in November 2002, DHS
formally came into being as a stand-alone, Cabinet-level department to
further coordinate and unify National homeland security efforts,
opening its doors on March 1, 2003. DHS brought together 22 agencies
from across the Executive branch into a unified, integrated department,
to prevent terrorism and enhance security; secure and manage U.S.
borders; enforce and administer U.S. immigration laws; safeguard and
secure cyberspace; and ensure resilience to disasters.
With the creation of DHS, the enforcement and service functions of
INS and the U.S. Customs Service were absorbed into the Directorate of
Border and Transportation Security, including U.S. Customs, Bureau of
Border Security, and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. In
2003, President George W. Bush submitted a reorganization plan for DHS,
renaming the Bureau of Border Security the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and the Customs Service the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection. In 2007, DHS changed the name of the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement.
CBP assumed the Border Patrol and Inspections functions formerly
conducted by INS, and the Agriculture Inspection functions formerly
conducted by APHIS, while the Investigative functions were placed
within ICE. The legacy U.S. Customs Service's Air and Marine
Interdiction Division was initially transferred to ICE when DHS was
created in 2003; however, because CBP also had Border Patrol air and
marine assets, the Office of Air and Marine officially became CBP's
third uniformed division and consolidated its assets into CBP in 2006.
Today, with 60,000 employees, CBP is one of DHS's largest and most
complex components, with a priority mission of keeping terrorists and
their weapons out of the United States. It also has a responsibility
for securing the border--approximately 7,000 miles of land borders and
95,000 miles of coastline--and facilitating lawful international trade
and travel. CBP takes a comprehensive approach to border management and
control, combining customs, immigration, border security, and
agricultural protection into one coordinated and supportive activity.
On a typical day, CBP processes nearly 1 million travelers, screens
more than 67,000 cargo containers, arrests more than 1,100 individuals,
and seizes nearly 6 tons of illicit drugs. CBP enforces hundreds of
U.S. laws and regulations, including customs, immigration, trade, and
drug laws. In addition to its own regulations, CBP's enforces more than
500 laws for 47 Federal agencies, in coordination with these agencies.
Like its mission, CBP's law enforcement jurisdiction is highly
complex and derives authority from a wide spectrum of Federal statutes.
CBP enforces customs laws \1\ related to tariff and revenue protection,
and immigration laws \2\ related to the admission of individuals to the
United States. Additionally, because of its presence at the border and
its unique border search authority,\3\ which is shared with ICE, CBP
has been given the broad mandate to enforce all Federal laws--including
drug, export control, money laundering, and agriculture laws--at the
borders of the United States. This requires ensuring that all persons
and cargo enter the United States legally and safely through official
POEs, preventing the illegal entry of persons and contraband into the
United States at and between POEs, promoting the safe and efficient
flow of commerce into the United States, and enforcing trade and tariff
laws and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Title 19, United States Code.
\2\ See, e.g., Title 8, United States Code.
\3\ See 19 U.S.C. 482, 1461, 1467, 1496, 1499, 1581, 1582, 1583,
1589a, 1595, and 8 U.S.C. 1357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP performs its critical law enforcement mission with three front-
line operational offices--Field Operations, Border Patrol, and Air and
Marine. CBP's front-line offices receive direct operational support
from the Offices of International Trade, Intelligence and Investigative
Liaison, International Affairs, and Internal Affairs. Additionally,
CBP's mission support offices, as well as our Federal, State, local,
Tribal, international, and private-sector partners are vital
contributors toward CBP's mission.
The Office of Field Operations (OFO), operating at 328 POEs across
the United States and 16 Preclearance locations internationally, plays
a vital role in preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from
entering the United States and enforcing customs, immigration, and
agriculture laws and regulations. At our Nation's POEs, CBP inspects
all individuals seeking entry to the United States and determines their
admissibility. Expanding the Nation's zone of security, CBP's National
Targeting Center (NTC) leverages all available advance passenger and
cargo data, previous crossing information, intelligence, and law
enforcement information, as well as open-source data, to interdict
high-risk passengers and cargo at foreign departure locations before
they can board or be loaded on a conveyance destined to the United
States. In between the POEs, the Office of Border Patrol (BP) prevents
terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and drug traffickers from
entering the United States; detects and prevents the smuggling and
unlawful entry of undocumented individuals into the United States; and
apprehends those people found to be in violation of the immigration
laws. From the air and from the sea, the Office of Air and Marine (OAM)
protects the American people and the Nation's critical infrastructure
through the coordinated use of integrated air and marine forces to
detect, interdict, and prevent acts of terrorism and the unlawful
movement of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband toward or
across the borders of the United States.
In addition to its security mission, CBP has direct responsibility
for enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness. The Office of
International Trade (OT) coordinates CBP's trade policies and
strategies. By reducing costs for industry and enforcing trade laws
against counterfeit, unsafe, and fraudulently-entered goods, CBP works
to enable legitimate trade, contribute to American economic prosperity,
and protect against risks to public health and safety. In 2013, CBP
Officers processed more than $2.3 trillion in trade and nearly 25
million cargo containers through the Nation's POEs, up 1 percent from
last year. CBP also conducted more than 24,000 seizures of goods that
violated intellectual property rights, with a total retail value of
$1.7 billion, representing a 38 percent increase in value from fiscal
year 2012.
The Office of Intelligence and Investigative Liaison (OIIL)
supports CBP's mission through a multi-layered approach that includes
collecting and analyzing advance traveler and cargo information, using
enhanced law enforcement technical collection capabilities, providing
timely analysis of intelligence and information, and establishing
intelligence-sharing relationships with Federal, State, local, and
Tribal agencies and the intelligence community.
CBP's Office of International Affairs (INA) coordinates and
supports foreign initiatives, programs, and activities within CBP.
Through international cooperation and relationships, INA strives to
extend U.S. borders by implementing programs and initiatives that
promote anti-terrorism, global border security, non-proliferation,
export controls, immigration, and capacity building.
CBP works to ensure that its officers and agents conduct their
activities in a professional and humane manner that promotes the safety
of its officers and members of the public it interacts with to build
community trust. CBP's Internal Affairs (IA) Office is responsible for
ensuring compliance with all CBP-wide programs and policies relating to
corruption, misconduct, or mismanagement and for executing the internal
security, integrity, and management inspections program. Among its
responsibilities, IA investigates serious misconduct by CBP employees.
ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of DHS and one of
three DHS agencies charged with enforcing and administering the
Nation's immigration system. Created through a merger of the
investigative and interior enforcement elements of the U.S. Customs
Service and INS, ICE's primary mission is to protect National security,
public safety, and the integrity of our borders through the criminal
and civil enforcement of Federal law governing border control, customs,
trade, and immigration. As with CBP, in 2007, DHS changed the name of
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ICE.
Today, ICE has more than 19,000 employees in offices in all 50
States and 48 foreign countries. ICE promotes homeland security and
public safety through the strategic and wide-ranging criminal and civil
enforcement of hundreds of Federal laws governing border control,
customs, trade, and immigration.\4\ ICE primarily consists of two
operational programs: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Guided by ICE's prioritized
enforcement principles, ERO identifies and apprehends convicted
criminals and other individuals deemed removable, detains or places
these individuals in alternatives to detention programs, and removes
individuals determined to be illegally present (or otherwise subject to
removal) from the United States. HSI is responsible for a wide range of
domestic and international criminal investigations arising from the
illegal movement of people and merchandise into, within, and out of the
United States, often in coordination with other Federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1101 et. seq. (especially 8 U.S.C.
1225(b), 1226, 1231, 1324, 1325, 1326, and 1357) (pertaining to general
immigration arrest, detention, and enforcement provisions); 8 U.S.C.
1363a and 19 U.S.C. 2081 (pertaining to undercover investigative
authorities); 15 U.S.C. 1124, 18 U.S.C. 2320 (pertaining to
importing goods bearing infringing marks and trafficking in counterfeit
goods or services); 19 U.S.C. Chapter 4 (the Tariff Act of 1930); 12
U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-59, and 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.
(Bank Secrecy Act); 18 U.S.C. 542, 545, and 554 (pertaining to entry
by false statements and smuggling goods into and out of the United
States); 18 U.S.C. 1590 and 1591 (pertaining to peonage, slavery,
and trafficking in persons); 18 U.S.C. 2251, 2251A, and 2252
(pertaining to sexual exploitation and other abuse of children); 19
U.S.C. 1589a (pertaining to enforcement authority of customs
officers); 18 U.S.C. 1956, 1957, and 1960 (Money Laundering Control
Act); 19 U.S.C. 2601-2613 (Cultural Property Implementation Act); 21
U.S.C. 841, 844, 952, and 959 (Controlled Substances Act); 46 U.S.C.
70501-07 (Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act); 50 U.S.C. 1701-1707
(International Emergency Economic Powers Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERO enforces civil immigration laws in a manner to best promote
National security, public safety, border security, and the integrity of
the immigration system. To protect public safety and National security,
ICE places highest priority on the removal of convicted criminals and
those who pose a threat to our communities. The removal of these
individuals from the United States is a National priority; and ERO's
core functions are executed by a team of deportation officers and
immigration enforcement agents that operate in nearly every
jurisdiction of the United States. ERO facilitates the processing of
individuals in removal proceedings through the immigration court system
and coordinates their departure from the country, including the
preparation of necessary travel documents.
The establishment of the Fugitive Operations Support Center (FOSC)
in 2006 in Williston, Vermont is a key element in ERO's strategy to
address enforcement of arrest and removal warrants to include
fugitives, individuals who have illegally reentered the United States
after removal, and those posing a threat to our communities. Since
inception, FOSC, by analyzing and reconciling ICE records pertaining to
fugitive and the at-large convicted criminal populations, steadily
reduced the number of existing fugitives nationally. In addition, the
FOSC provides vital assistance to ICE Fugitive Operations Teams (FOTs)
in the field with critical information on the identity, immigration and
criminal history, and location of high-priority removal aliens in the
United States, thereby resulting in increasing criminal arrest
percentages over the last several years. Since 2003, ICE has gone from
8 FOTs Nation-wide to 129 FOTs deployed today. At the end of fiscal
year 2013, criminal arrests accounted for 75 percent of overall arrests
by fugitive operations, or 23,504 criminal arrests out of the 31,222
total fugitive operations arrests for the fiscal year.
In addition to the FOSC, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC)
is a National enforcement operations facility administered by ICE. The
center is a single National point of contact that provides timely
immigration status, identity information, and real-time assistance to
local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies on individuals
suspected, arrested, or convicted of criminal activity. The center
protects and defends the United States by sharing timely and relevant
ICE information with our law enforcement partners around the world. The
number of requests sent to the LESC increased from 4,000 in fiscal year
1996 to more than 1.4 million in fiscal year 2013. During fiscal year
2013, agents at the LESC placed 12,289 detainers on aliens suspected of
immigration violations. Finally, during fiscal year 2013, Law
Enforcement Specialists and Deportation Officers at the center
responded to 151,319 calls from law enforcement officers.
While ERO enforces civil immigration laws, HSI's Criminal
Investigators conduct criminal investigations to protect the United
States against terrorist and other criminal activity that threaten
public safety and National security and bring to justice those seeking
to exploit our customs and immigration laws world-wide. HSI is the DHS
investigative agency with authority to investigate all violations of
Federal law. HSI has jurisdiction over crimes with a nexus to the U.S.
borders. To accomplish its mission, HSI uses its own legal authorities,
and legal authorities shared with other law enforcement entities
through cooperative agreements, to investigate immigration and customs
violations, including export enforcement, human rights violations,
narcotics, weapons and contraband smuggling, financial crimes,
cybercrimes, human trafficking and smuggling, child exploitation,
intellectual property violations, transnational gangs, and immigration
benefit fraud.
HSI protects America's borders, National security, and public
safety by targeting transnational threats, both at home and abroad. HSI
is a critical U.S. law enforcement asset, responsible for disrupting
and dismantling smuggling and all forms of transnational criminal
organizations that seek to exploit America's legitimate trade, travel,
financial, and immigration systems for illicit purposes. As the
principal criminal investigative agency within DHS, and with
jurisdiction over all crimes with a nexus to U.S. borders, HSI
investigates a wide range of financial crimes, which includes money
laundering and bulk cash smuggling (BCS). BCS has become the preferred
method of moving illicit proceeds by all types of criminal enterprises,
and HSI created the National Bulk Cash Smuggling Center (BCSC) in 2009
to proactively identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations
exploiting BCS. The total value of HSI seizures of currency and
monetary instruments has increased nearly 400% since fiscal year 2009,
from $276,325,178 to $1,278,807,524 in fiscal year 2013.
In addition to these financial investigations, ICE is one of the
leading agencies in the U.S. Government's efforts to prevent foreign
adversaries from illegally obtaining U.S. military products and
sensitive technology, including weapons of mass destruction and their
components. HSI's Counter-Proliferation Investigations Program (CPI),
part of the HSI National Security Investigations Division, oversees a
broad range of investigations related to export law violations. CPI
targets the trafficking and/or illegal export of conventional military
equipment, firearms, controlled dual-use equipment and technology,
materials used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, including
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials. HSI enforces
U.S. export laws involving military items and controlled dual-use
goods, as well as products going to sanctioned or embargoed countries.
A part of the President's Export Control Reform Initiative is to
improve law enforcement coordination to investigate violations of U.S.
export control laws. In November 2010, President Obama signed Executive
Order 13558, creating the Export Enforcement Coordination Center
(E2C2)--an interagency de-confliction center consisting of 8
departments and 18 Federal agencies. New agency additions to the center
have been the Export Import Bank and the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service. The Executive Order establishes DHS as the Executive agency
responsible for managing and operating the E2C2 and further directs
that the center is mandated to coordinate and enhance criminal,
administrative, and related export enforcement activities thereby
protecting National security through greater export enforcement and
intelligence exchange. The E2C2 serves as a conduit between Federal law
enforcement agencies as well as between Federal law enforcement and the
intelligence community, as the primary point of contact between
enforcement authorities and agencies engaged in export licensing,
coordinating law enforcement public outreach activities and
establishing Government-wide statistical tracking capabilities for U.S.
criminal and administrative export enforcement activities.
ICE is also one of the leading agencies in the investigation of
criminal intellectual property violations involving the illegal
production, smuggling, and distribution of counterfeit and pirated
products, as well as associated money laundering violations. Led by
ICE, the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR
Center), located in Arlington, Virginia, brings together 21 Federal and
international partners to leverage resources, skills, and authorities
to provide a comprehensive response to intellectual property theft. The
former U.S. Customs Service established the IPR Center in 1999, but
following the events of 9/11, priorities were necessarily shifted and
the IPR Center could not be adequately staffed. ICE rejuvenated the IPR
Center in 2008, and it now stands at the forefront of the U.S.
Government's law enforcement response to global IP theft. The mission
of the IPR Center is to address the theft of innovation that threatens
U.S. economic stability and National security, undermines the
competitiveness of U.S. industry in world markets, and places the
public's health and safety at risk. The IPR Center brings together many
of the key domestic and foreign investigative agencies to efficiently
and effectively leverage resources, and promotes the skills and
authorities to provide a comprehensive response to IP crime. In fiscal
year 2013, the IPR Center received 8,529 new leads, more than five
times the number of leads received in fiscal year 2012. Furthermore, in
fiscal year 2013, HSI's investigative efforts and collaboration with
CBP led to the seizure of counterfeit goods valued at over $1.7 billion
manufacturer's suggested retail price (i.e., the price that the
legitimate good would have cost if purchased in the marketplace).
In addition to HSI and ERO, two other ICE offices have unique
operational roles: The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) and
the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPLA, the largest
legal program in DHS, provides critical legal advice and counsel to ICE
leadership and agency personnel on all matters related to the
investigation and enforcement of the Nation's customs and immigration
laws. Further, OPLA is the Federal Government's representative in
exclusion, deportation, bond, and removal proceedings before the
Nation's immigration courts, prioritizing litigation of those cases
involving convicted criminals, terrorists, and human rights abusers.
OPLA also provides critical legal support to ICE components focusing on
customs, worksite enforcement, ethics, employment law, tort claims, and
administrative law issues.
OPR investigates allegations of criminal and administrative
misconduct involving ICE and CBP employees. In cases of potential
misconduct, OPR prepares reports of its investigations for possible
judicial or management action. OPR also provides independent reviews of
ICE programs and offices, adjudicates ICE background investigations and
issues security clearances for all prospective and current ICE
employees and contract staff. OPR also contains an inspection branch
that ensures ICE operates consistently with the high standards we
promulgate to regulate our program offices and civil detention system.
In addition, OPR is also responsible for the employee suitability and
security clearance processes.
cbp and ice enforcement and facilitation efforts at and between poes
As the Secretary recently testified, we are gratified by the
support Congress has provided to improve security at our borders and
POEs and ensure active, world-wide enforcement of our customs and
immigration laws. With that support, DHS has made great progress. There
is now more manpower, technology, and infrastructure on our borders, in
the interior and internationally, than ever before, and our men and
women are producing results. CBP and ICE play an integral part every
day in ensuring the safety and security of the American people.
Every day CBP personnel work to uphold and enforce CBP's
authorities and continue to make tremendous progress. For example, in
fiscal year 2013, Border Patrol apprehensions totaled 420,789 Nation-
wide, 16 percent above fiscal year 2012, but 42 percent below peak
fiscal year 2008 levels. Also in fiscal year 2013, CBP Officers and
agents seized more than 4.3 million pounds of narcotics across the
country. In addition, the agency seized more than $106 million in
unreported currency through targeted enforcement operations. At POEs in
fiscal year 2013, CBP Officers arrested 7,976 people wanted for serious
crimes, including murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Officers also
stopped more than 132,000 inadmissible aliens from entering the United
States through POEs. Additionally, CBP Agriculture Specialists
conducted approximately 1.6 million interceptions of prohibited plant
materials, meat, and animal by-products at POEs while also stopping
more than 160,000 potentially dangerous pests. Providing critical
aerial and maritime domain awareness, in fiscal year 2013, Air and
Marine operations contributed to the seizure of more than 1.1 million
pounds of narcotics and the apprehension of 63,000 individuals involved
in illicit activities.
To protect public safety and National security, ICE prioritizes the
removal of individuals who pose a danger to National security or a risk
to public safety, including persons convicted of crimes, with
particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders.
In fiscal year 2013, ICE removed 368,644 individuals, of which 98
percent fell into one of ICE's immigration enforcement priorities. Of
these removals, 216,810 (59 percent) were convicted criminal aliens,
which is an 89 percent increase in the removal of convicted criminals
since fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2013, ICE also completed the
deployment of Secure Communities to all 3,181 U.S. jurisdictions in 50
States, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia.
As the largest investigative arm of DHS, ICE enhances National and
border security by interrupting the illicit flow of money, merchandise,
and people that support terrorism and other criminal activity. ICE made
over 40,000 criminal arrests in fiscal year 2013, and ICE criminal
investigators initiated more than 40,000 new investigations. ICE seized
$1.3 billion in currency and other monetary instruments and 1.6 million
pounds of narcotics and other dangerous drugs.
h.r. 3846 (cbp) and h.r. 4279 (ice)
H.R. 3846, The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
Authorization Act and H.R. 4279, The U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Authorization Act were both drafted to authorize--for
the first time--the organization and security functions of CBP and ICE.
The bills modernize and clarify current statute, specifically the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, to remove references and authorities
granted to organizations that no longer exist and entrusts them
respectively, to the commissioner of CBP and the director of ICE.
CBP and ICE support the intent of H.R. 3846 and H.R. 4279, and the
committee's effort to authorize a modern-day CBP and ICE and their
critical security functions. We thank the Members for their efforts in
drafting the bills, which lay a foundation for formally authorizing the
missions of CBP and ICE for the first time since the Department of
Homeland Security was created in 2002. These authorizations recognize
the distinct and important roles that CBP and ICE play, every day, in
keeping Americans safe and facilitating legitimate travel and trade.
Additionally, CBP and ICE and the committee all agree that we need
to ensure that both CBP and ICE maintain their existing authorities and
responsibilities, without inadvertently disrupting the continuity of
current CBP and ICE missions, duties, functions, and authorities. We
believe the bill provides a solid statutory foundation. It is important
that any legislation preserve both agencies' flexibility to reorganize
as needed to ensure that they remain dynamic and agile, capable of
addressing emerging threats or changing operational environments.
conclusion
CBP and ICE will continue to work with DHS and our Federal, State,
local, Tribal, and international partners, to strengthen border
security. We will remain vigilant and focus on positioning DHS's
greatest capabilities to combat the greatest risks that exist today,
preparing for emerging threats, and continuing to build a sophisticated
approach tailored to meet the challenges of securing a 21st Century
border.
As Secretary Johnson recently highlighted to the Committee on
Homeland Security, more than 100 Congressional committees and
subcommittees have jurisdictional oversight over the Department of
Homeland Security. As such, both CBP and ICE's authorities are spread
out across many statutes. We commend the subcommittee's endeavor to
authorize CBP and ICE in statute. This pursuit reflects the very spirit
and impetus of the Homeland Security Act: To integrate, streamline, and
modernize our Nation's security functions into a unified force, a
strengthened homeland security enterprise, and a more secure America
that is better equipped to confront the range of threats we face today
and in the days to come. We look forward to continuing to work with
Congress on this endeavor.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify
about the efforts of CBP and ICE in securing our borders. We look
forward to answering your questions.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Ragsdale for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL H. RAGSDALE, ACTING DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATIONS
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Ragsdale. Good morning, Chairwoman Miller, Ranking
Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss the proposed legislation to authorize U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement and the important role we play in
making our Nation more secure.
I would like to start by expressing my appreciation for the
committee, and their commitment to the men and women of ICE.
ICE has grown exponentially since the creation of DHS in 2001.
Today, ICE has more than 19,000 employees and offices in 50
States and 48 foreign countries. ICE promotes homeland security
and public safety through strategic and wide-ranging criminal
and civil enforcement of hundreds of Federal laws governing
border control, customs, trade, and immigration. Leveraging
those authorities, ICE has become a powerful and sophisticated
Federal law enforcement agency.
ICE consists of two main operational programs: Enforcement
and Removal Operations, and Homeland Security Investigations.
Guided by ICE's prioritized enforcement principles, ERO
identifies, apprehends criminal and other removable aliens,
detains these individuals, and removes those individuals
determined to be illegally present in the United States. HSI is
responsible for a wide range of domestic and international
criminal investigations arising from the illegal movement of
people and goods into, within, and out of the United States,
often in coordination with other Federal agencies.
The work of ERO and HSI is bolstered by the Office of the
Principal Legal Advisor, the Office of Professional
Responsibility, and the key mission support work and the folks
in management and administration. As the principal
investigative arm of the Department, ICE enhances National and
border security by dismantling transnational criminal
organizations that seek to exploit our borders. In fiscal year
2013 alone, ICE special agents made 32,401 criminal arrests and
initiated 126,000 new investigations. We seized $1.3 billion in
currency and other monetary instruments, and 1.6 million pounds
of narcotics and other dangerous drugs.
Just last week, ICE agents, as members of the San Diego
Tunnel Taskforce, in collaboration with our enforcement
counterparts in Mexico, uncovered two sophisticated drug
tunnels connecting San Diego's Otay Mesa Industrial Park with
warehouses in neighboring Tijuana, Mexico. These two tunnels
are the sixth and seventh cross-border passageways discovered
in San Diego in less than 4 years. Similarly, ICE continues its
efforts against illicit finance by supporting the bulk cash
smuggling centers' inclusion of additional law enforcement
partners.
ICE will also grow our commercial fraud by expanding
investigative support and leveraging enforcement operations
with State and local enforcement agencies. ICE will continue to
develop its illicit pathways attack strategy to focus on cross-
border threats, global illicit pathways including contraband
smugglings, arms trafficking, money laundering, bulk cash
smuggling, human smuggling and, most importantly, human
trafficking. For ERO, ERO's agents and officers identified and
arrested, and removed, more than 368,000 aliens; 82 percent
were those who had been arrested in the interior and previously
convicted of a crime.
ICE also conducted over 230,000 removals of individuals
apprehended along our borders while attempting to unlawfully
enter the United States. In sum, 59 percent of all ICE
removals--a total of about 216,000--have been removed after
having been convicted of a crime. ICE's commitment to
prioritize the removal of criminal aliens and egregious
immigration violators is evident in a recent ERO operation.
Last week, ERO officers and fugitive operations teams
throughout central and south Texas arrested 50 convicted
criminal aliens, immigration fugitives, and other immigration
violators during a 3-day operation.
Of the individuals taken into custody, 30 had convictions
including sex offenses, rape, larceny, drug possession,
domestic violence, aggravated assault, and driving under the
influence. However, even with all these successes enhancing our
National and border security, ICE sometimes faces challenges in
asserting our authority. At present, there is no single piece
of legislation that identifies ICE and sets forth our mission
in a consolidated way.
H.R. 4279, the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement Act,
does just that. As this bill makes its way through the
legislative process, we look forward to working with the
Congress to ensure that ICE's existing authorities and
responsibilities are maintained.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you have.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you both very much. I think I will just
pick up on your final comment there, Mr. Ragsdale, mentioning
about how there is no single piece of legislation authorizing.
I remember when I first got on this committee and found out
that neither CBP or ICE had ever been formally authorized by
the Congress. I was floored, to tell you the truth. So that has
been the principal impetus behind these two pieces of
legislation.
As we said, other agencies are annually authorized, or
routinely authorized, reauthorized, by the Congress. In this
case, that has not happened with these two agencies. Certainly
as was mentioned in regards to the 9/11 Commission
recommendations and their goals, this is something that is very
important. I think as we think about how the agencies have
evolved over the last 12 years as well, just sort-of bringing
them and recognizing the modern-day CBP and ICE as part of this
legislative process also would be very helpful.
Perhaps you could talk just a little bit, both gentlemen if
you will, about having this kind of clear guidance in the form
of an authorization from the Congress. How that would really
accrue positively to both of your agencies. I just throw that
out there.
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you. Agree, actually, fully with the
reasons you outlined for authorizing CBP. I mean, the evolution
of the Department of Homeland Security and CBP itself, the
growth of the organization, our missions, we are not just a
small aspect of an under secretariat that, as your pointed out,
no longer exists. Or the largest law enforcement agency in the
United States, with the responsibility to enforce 500 laws from
over 47 agencies. So clarifying that role and responsibility,
establishing the name of our organization, the reporting
structures, it would be very meaningful to have that in
statute.
Mr. Ragsdale. I would add, given our size, at 20,000,
nearly 20,000, employees, and folks putting themselves in
harm's way every day, there needs to be clarity about their
mission. These are folks that are challenged with, you know,
ever-sophisticated transnational criminal organizations,
dangerous situations around the United States, particularly
along the Southwest Border. Making sure that our mission is
clear in their minds, in the minds of the Congress, the public
is of critical import.
It is a cohesive message. It is a message that Federal
partners and State and local partners understand. So I think
for all the reasons you have articulated, as well as Mr.
McAleenan, this--it just makes sense.
Mrs. Miller. You know, also--and this is--I will be
sensitive to what you can actually comment on because this is
our problem, not your problem, the Congress not really giving
the clear authorities and having--the last time I saw a wiring
diagram there were 80 or 90 different committees and
subcommittees that the Department of Homeland Security had to
answer to. So the amount of time that your agencies spend in
trying to react and respond to questions that all of these
various jurisdictional umbrellas have over your agency has got
to be very difficult.
It would seem to me that just having more clear guidance
from an authorizing standpoint, as well, may be advantageous to
your agencies, as well. How would you see that?
Mr. McAleenan. I think that is correct, Chairwoman. It is
understandable that we have lots of oversight and interest in
our mission. We have operations in all 50 States and 40
countries abroad. What we do at the ports of entry and between
the ports affects every State in the Union. We appreciate the
input from Congress. It is helpful to have a committee that
understands the full scope of our mission and to have an
authorizing bill that articulates that in one place, however.
So I think, to your point, it is useful to have some clarity in
that.
Mr. Ragsdale. I would also agree. Certainly, clarity among
all the issues that ICE is involved in as well, certainly
brings some form and shape to the discussion. You know, we have
a wide-ranging mission, as well. Protecting the border is
something that touches many, many people in many different
ways. But again, having an analytic framework and a legislative
framework to have the discussion from certainly would
streamline and clarify sort of everybody's expectations.
Mrs. Miller. Well, I appreciate both of the agencies
working very closely with both the staffs--my staff and the
Ranking Member's staff--as well as we have put together this
piece of legislation. It is my intent, actually, to have a
mark-up on these pieces of legislation in the very near future.
So I guess the last thing I would ask you gentlemen, if there
is anything else that we should know about as far as what might
be included, or other kinds of things that we ought to be
looking at, this is your opportunity. I am not sure exactly
what questions to ask you. You know your business better than
we do, so is there something in particular that we ought to be
looking at still?
Mr. McAleenan. From CBP's perspective, H.R. 3846 provides a
good framework. We have had some robust exchange on the
technical assistance side with your staff, and I think that has
been a very good conversation. Nothing significant to offer
today.
Mrs. Miller. Very good.
Mr. Ragsdale. Nothing significant here, as well. Again, we
have had a great relationship with your staff during the
technical assistance process. We see this as a huge step
forward, so, you know, we think it is certainly great progress.
Mrs. Miller. Okay, very good.
With that, I would recognize our Ranking Member for her
questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Let me ask Mr.
McAleenan a question on risk-based assessment. I have
introduced H.R. 3575, the Putting Security First in
Preclearance Act to require CBP to make a risk-based security
case for any new preclearance site before expanding the
program. What are the criteria CBP uses for determining whether
there is a risk-based security case for deploying CBP personnel
overseas, and how is that applied in the context of
preclearance?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you. I think it is perfectly
appropriate to channel all of our operations, and our overseas
operations in particular, to focus on the highest-risk pathways
in the highest-risk areas. For preclearance, there are two main
objectives for preclearance. Sometimes they exist in the same
location, sometimes they are separate. Facilitating lawful
international travel, and then securing it.
In the security side, in particular, as you have asked
about, Ranking Member, the terrorism travel aspect is foremost.
We look at things like the number of watch-listed persons that
have traveled through a particular airport over the last
several fiscal years. We also assess emerging intelligence and
how that applies to that pathway in terms of individuals that
might present a risk, headed toward the United States.
We look at the immigration factors. How many folks
traveling on this route have proven to be inadmissible to the
United States after examination? That is a really key aspect.
The number of fraudulent documents and the use of fraudulent
documents that we have intercepted. One aspect of preclearance
that is not well-understood is the fact that it is also a great
opportunity for agriculture enforcement.
So pathways that come from regions of concern where there
are pests that could harm U.S. agriculture, a trillion-dollar
industry that is critical to the country, that is a factor, as
well. So we combine all those aspects to determine the risk
basis for selecting a new location for preclearance.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I like the idea that we are on the
same page about the at-risk approach, and hope that I can work
with the Chairwoman as we move toward reauthorization to
include that language in the legislation. I think that would be
a very good place, and I am glad that we are sort of on a
common approach to doing that. It is a very important part of
your responsibility.
You have got 60,000 employees. Many of them are on our
Northern Border and Southern Border. We offer them our
appreciation. Over the last couple of months, or last year, as
you well know, there were questions of overtime hourly
compensation, relocation. What has the agency done to deal with
some of those issues that the men and women who are on the
border do that particular work? What has been the response?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for the question and your
acknowledgment and continued support of the men and women of
CBP. It is an honor to represent them today. They do tremendous
work on behalf of the Nation and your respective States and the
American people. In terms of the compensation issues, overtime
is a critical aspect of how we conduct business. It allows us
to flexibly respond to emerging threats or traffic patterns in
a given day, both at ports of entry and between.
We are eager to continue to work with Congress to make sure
that we are administering our application of overtime
appropriately. We have several different types of overtime that
our front-line personnel use. We have taken a number of steps,
with the Secretary's guidance and Commissioner Kerlikowske's
guidance to ensure that we have the right training, the right
oversight, and the right review and auditing procedures for how
we apply our overtime. We think it is critical to our
operations and critical to recognize the great work that our
men and women do, above and beyond the call of duty and above
and beyond their standard shifts.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I would want the men and women to
know that in this hearing room way up in here in Washington,
DC. we are still concerned about them.
Let me have a question for ICE. But let me just quickly
ask, in your recruitment obviously you have diversity with
Hispanics. Are you looking for African-Americans, Asians, women
in the recruitment of vast amount of employees that you have?
Do you have a good outreach?
Mr. McAleenan. Absolutely. Actually, with this tremendous
opportunity that Congress has given us in the fiscal year 2014
omnibus bill to hire 2,000 additional CBP Officers, we are
actually targeting a more diverse geographic laydown so we can
find people of all backgrounds, all races, all expertise and a
lot of language skills, as well, so we can have the most
representative workforce of the United States and the best
workforce to interact with international travelers and others.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Let us know how we can be of
help.
Mr. Ragsdale, very quickly, in the landscape of ICE offices
all across America they do many things. Tell me how
devastating, how you have heard how devastating and deadly
human smuggling and human trafficking has come to be in terms
of those who may be interfacing with those issues.
Mr. Ragsdale. Well, as you know, those are crimes that are
slightly different in terms of their sort-of, operational,
sort-of results. The smuggling organizations have exploited our
borders and they are sort-of commodity-agnostic. They move
people, they will move drugs. So we are certainly bringing our
hands to the fight against smuggling organizations.
The trafficking piece is one that is a little bit more
difficult, and that is where we need to sort-of absolutely rely
on outreach. It is the blue campaign, it is sort-of the ``See
Something, Say Something.'' There is a whole range of sort-of
relying on folks to--when they see victims of trafficking that
might need law enforcement help, to reach out. Through the tip
line, and sort-of bring that to law enforcement's attention. We
certainly have really put some increase, over a 400 percent
increase, in investigative hours in human smuggling and human
trafficking in the last 4 years.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, very quickly, when it deals with
human smuggling, as you well know, if you are restrained it is
like trafficking or slavery. But my question--let me just
finish on this last question--a reauthorization that ramps up
legislation, or language, for that aspect of your business
would be very helpful.
Mr. Ragsdale. Indeed. It is certainly a scourge, and we
absolutely want to bring every authority we have to that fight.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope that we will
have one of our colleagues sit in the Ranking Member's seat.
Thank you very much. Yield back.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentlelady. Before I recognize Mr.
Duncan, Mr. McAleenan, as you are filling these positions for
the 2,000 new officers--and the gentlelady was talking about
the reach--certainly our veterans, our returning veterans, have
got a tremendous skill set that would be just a huge value-add,
I know, to your Department. So I am sure you are looking in
that direction also, and we certainly encourage you to do so.
With that, the Chairwoman recognizes the gentleman from
South Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Why, Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thanks
for this hearing. Thank you, guys, for what you do, CBP and ICE
and the whole Department, the challenges you face to keep us
safe. Especially when there is no--sometimes no real clear
direction, not only from Congress but maybe the administration,
on what your role is. That is why I think the authorization
bill is so necessary. That at least Congress can give you clear
direction on what we think the priorities should be and in
representation of our districts.
So thank you again, and I can't say that enough. So given
the catastrophic risk that a smuggled dirty bomb could pose to
an American city, would it be helpful for the committee to
authorize CBP's covert testing program for transborder nuclear
and radiological smuggling to ensure the systems and procedures
in place are working? The gentleman from CBP.
Mr. McAleenan. So I don't know that it needs to be
specifically authorized in the bill for us to continue that
activity. I agree entirely with you, Congressman, that it is a
critical aspect of testing our capabilities and ensuring that
we are using the radiological detection equipment, the portal
monitors, the handheld devices, our non-intrusive inspection
technology to its greatest effectiveness at the border. We will
continue to do so. I am sort-of agnostic on whether it needs to
be specifically referenced in the bill.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. In your view, how should CBP coordinate
with the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, especially in the
area of risk assessment then?
Mr. McAleenan. I think we need to continue to coordinate
very closely with them. The DNDO brings tremendous expertise
from folks across the spectrum, from the Department of Energy,
from DOD. They have scientists that are expert in the field and
understand the exact levels and types of radiation that can be
detected in different settings. They are really--they help us
provide--get a better sense of the overall global risk and the
types of pathways that adversaries might use to move
radiological and nuclear devices.
So I rely on that partnership. I am going to be meeting
with the director of DNDO in a couple of hours today, actually,
on precisely this issue. So I think it is critical for us to
remain joined at the hip, and mutually informing each other's
work.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Well, we want to assist you with that
mission. One thing I would like to ask you to do is between now
and the full committee mark-up on this bill make contact with
my office, and see if there is needed language in the
authorization bill as a form of amendment. Or kind-of educate
me and my staff on some of the programs, maybe off the record
as well.
So let me just shift gears, and say in the 112th Congress
more than 100 Congressional committees and subcommittees
asserted jurisdiction over DHS. DHS personnel participated in
289 formal House and Senate hearings involving 28 committees,
caucuses, and commissions which required testimony from more
than 400 DHS witnesses. As the Chairman of the Oversight and
Management Efficiency Subcommittee, I was involved in a lot of
that, probably, to do so.
But the Department also participated in more than 4,300
briefings and other non-hearing engagements with Congress. That
is pretty substantial. So can you quantify for me how much time
your components spend each year responding to Congress and
preparing for meetings on the Hill? I am not gonna hold you to
these numbers, but----
Mr. McAleenan. Well, I haven't actually done the math. I
mean--but the number of hearings and briefings is extensive. We
responded to about 3,500 inquiries from the Hill last year and
1,300 letters, as well as the dozens of hearings and hundreds
of briefings we conducted. So it is a significant effort. We
want to prepare and provide accurate information back to our
oversight and appropriations committees. But it is quite an
endeavor.
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Ragsdale.
Mr. Ragsdale. So I don't have specific numbers. But I will
tell you it is a substantial amount of work. Certainly, you
know, we welcome the oversight and we certainly welcome the
robust style that we have with folks that are very interested
in what we do. I think, as you have heard, because the border
touches so many people in so many different ways, and there are
so many laws that we investigate and enforce related to border
protection, we certainly understand that.
Having said that, it is part of--what that level of effort
does certainly have an impact on operations.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. How has this impacted your ability to
actually manage the components? I mean, compliance with our
request, how does that impact your day-to-day focus? Are you
distracted, is it helpful, do we need to do more, should we
consider doing less?
Mr. Ragsdale. Well, I will say that I do spend several
probably hours a day reviewing sort of requests from oversight.
You know, whether it is correspondence, QFRs, there is a range
of things. We certainly, again, welcome the partnership. But it
is a substantial amount of time.
Mr. Duncan. Sir?
Mr. McAleenan. It is a substantial amount of time. But to--
you asked three questions on the value. First of all, it is
valuable? It is important to have Congressional oversight.
There is a lot of important feedback from your constituents
that we get through this process. It does take a while to
answer all the different questions and sometimes similar
questions from different angles. But, you know, it is an
important part of our system and we understand that.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I will tell you it is invaluable for us
to at least answer the question for constituents. But also to
try to do our job. We realize we are a decade into this
conglomeration, and I think oversight is important. But also I
think authorization and clear direction is important. That is
why I think this bill is so necessary.
So with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentleman very much.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding the
hearing and for the introduction, along with our Ranking
Member, of these two important bills. I want to thank the
panelists here today from CBP and from ICE. I want to thank you
and the people who work with you, and have been working with
you for the years following September 11, 2001 and have kept
this country, relatively speaking, very safe since then.
The agents and officers who work in the district I
represent in El Paso help contribute to the fact that we are
the safest community in America today, and we have been for the
last 4 years. One of the safest, going back, for the last 10
years and plus. So I want to thank you.
I want to acknowledge, as other Members of this committee
have, the unusual difficulty in the work that these agents and
officers perform; the number of threats against which they must
remain vigilant; the conditions under which they are working
throughout the Northern and the Southern Border airports and
other places.
Doing so, frankly, in a time of uncertainty beyond not
having this authorization. You have sequester, you have
Government shutdown, you have a failure on the Federal
Government's part and Congress to fully support these agents
and officers in their work. So we really appreciate the work
that they do, in spite of all of that.
But along with the lack of authorization since--explicit
authorization since 2002, we have also seen more than a
doubling in the budget on border security. In 2003, it was
somewhere around $7 billion; today it is $18 billion. We have
doubled the size of the Border Patrol. That is on top of the
fact that Border Patrol and CBP have some very unusual police
powers when it comes to their ability to stop, question,
detain, search and seize property, and go through that property
at our ports of entry and then at those internal checkpoints.
So I guess starting with Mr. McAleenan, I would love for
you to discuss what opportunities we have for greater
transparency and oversight reporting, especially when you have
these very unusual special powers at our borders and at our
ports of entry.
That is following difficulty from--that Members of
Congress, the press, the public have had in getting information
about how CBP works, what your use-of-force policies are, this
PERF report that was recently done and leaked, concerns about
training and professionalism and customer service. What room do
we have within this legislation, or otherwise, to address those
issues?
Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Congressman. Good to see you and
your continued support for CBP. That is a good question. I
think we are having a really productive dialogue with the
Congress, with our stakeholders in the communities, with the
non-Governmental organizations, with the Office of Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties at DHS and others on these various issues.
As you noted, we do have some unique authorities at the border
of the United States, border search authority that--and the
authority to search persons and conveyances.
We try to exercise that with judicious and careful
precision, with supervision at each level of the ports and the
Border Patrol. I think having that dialogue about our existing
policies, and how carefully constructed they are, and also
identifying those areas where they can be improved. Which is
something, as you raised in the use-of-force area, that we have
been working on hard this last year. We are very proud of our
men and women in the field. We think they exercise tremendous
restraint in their encounters in a lot of dangerous situations.
But we also want to improve continuously, in terms of the
training we give them, the tactics we teach them, the equipment
that we provide so they can resolve situations at the lowest
possible level of force. I think the recent release of our use-
of-force policy, the discussions around that, I think
Commissioner Kerlikowske has expressed to Congress in several
occasions during his confirmation and in his first hearing his
intent to continue that transparency and openness and that
dialogue and even enhance it.
So I think this in an important topic that we can continue
to talk through.
Mr. O'Rourke. I appreciate that. I want to commend you and
our new Secretary for this greater level of transparency, at
the local level with Chief Luck of the Border Patrol, with DFO
Higgerson. We have had nothing but responsiveness and
transparency. So we really appreciate that. But I am concerned
that these positive steps are somewhat dependent on specific
people taking specific actions.
I would think it might make some sense to institutionalize
this and make sure--much as the way that we are authorizing
these agencies today--that we have a system on which the public
can depend, Congress can depend, this committee can depend to
ensure that we have that transparency, and it is not an
elective decision made by a specific Secretary or agency head.
But appreciate your answers to the questions.
With that, I will yield back.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairwoman recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan, and
always love showing up to the subcommittee, Ms. Chairwoman,
because you do a good job, I think. So obviously you and I and
others on this committee have been working for awhile to try to
try to get some of these bills to the House floor. So I
appreciate the bipartisanship that you have exhibited in trying
to do that.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Thank you, you know,
for representing all the employees over there at Homeland
Security. I was talking to Secretary Jensen the other day, and
hoping that the morale of the Department is coming up. Every
time we see the surveys of working for the Federal Government,
of course it is very difficult to be a public servant these
days. Even more difficult to be over at Homeland Security. So
please send our best to those who are doing a good job for us
over there.
I think one action, one idea that we can all stand behind
is that we need to stop needlessly separating our families. I
am sad to say that in my district, that in my area, Orange
County, California, of the juveniles who are detained for all
types of things from petty theft to grand larceny, let's say,
that of those juveniles those who are undocumented and sent to
ICE or requested for ICE to come over and detain them, that 43
percent of those type of undocumented detainees, juveniles in
the State of California, are detained out of Orange County.
Which means it is--when we are 3\1/2\ million people out of
38 million people, that it is really tough to be a young person
without documents in the county of Orange County. When I had an
opportunity to meet with the director of ICE, John Morton, we
discussed the continued need to use prosecutorial discretion
and alternatives to detention as a way of keeping our families
together. With the President's recent call to review all
deportation policies, I would like to continue to highlight the
need to use that discretion.
There is a clear difference between the impacts that
deportation has on a mother of three versus a convicted felon.
I would hope, as you all review those policies, that you
continue to keep in mind the harmful effects that deportations
have on our families and on our communities. I see the impact
of these deportations on families that I represent, I hear the
stories, I know you have heard the stories where people live in
everyday fear of deportation of their mother and--simply
because, these deportations, they didn't have the right
identification or they were at the wrong place at the wrong
time.
So I question--my question to you is: As you review your
overall deportation strategies how will you include the voice
and the perspective of our community stakeholders? What will
you do to ensure that we uphold the principles of family unity
and due process in our deportation standards?
Mr. Ragsdale. Well certainly prosecutorial discretion is a
concept that makes perfect sense. I think we have heard--or you
have heard from ICE many, many times that we want our removals
to be--have the greatest impact on public safety. Certainly the
enforcement programs we have put in place, that started in June
2010 with former Director Morton's memorandum, have really
sort-of transformed the way we do business. Last year, for
2013, 98 percent of the ICE removals fell into the four
priorities identified in the memo.
So I think one of the themes that we certainly have heard
today is law enforcement agencies and the men and women who do
the real work like clarity. I think, you know, the idea of
discretion is something they fully understand and embrace. I
think they certainly understand there are many views on this
topic. But clarity is something they can get behind and follow.
The numbers certainly bear that out.
I was just in Orange County a week or so ago to launch
Project iGuardian on protecting children from child
exploitation. We have great partnerships in Orange County, we
recognize that ICE's role in protecting families in Orange
County is of particular import. But we do know that clarity is
what really drives the best process here. I think the results
speak for themselves in terms of the clarity that our folks
have done, and I think--to the extent we see greater reform,
which we support, we will get behind that, as well.
Ms. Sanchez. Chairwoman, my time is up. But if we have
another round of questions I have some more questions. I just
want to indicate we do have a great task force in Orange County
with respect to human trafficking; one which we have funded
over the years--I think up to $600,000--to put police and
probation and workers, et cetera, and some of the Federal
agencies to work with what is really a disgusting sex
trafficking, domestic trafficking, et cetera of people.
Mrs. Miller. Since we have no other--if you have another
question, please----
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the
opportunity to ask.
Acting Director Ragsdale, in 2012 and 2013 I, along with
other California Members, wrote to our Governor asking him to
advocate for, and sign into law, the California Trust Act. As
you know, this was in response to the ill-conceived Secure
Communications program. It makes clear that the program needs
clear, minimum standards for when local law enforcement will
respond to Federal immigration detainer requests that results
from the Secure Communications program. The program really put
a strain on the trust between the community and our local law
enforcement.
As you know, one of the things that happens with immigrant
communities is that there are immigrants actually within those
communities that actually prey upon the immigrant communities
and those who don't--might not have the right documents or have
over-stayed documents in our country because they know that
they won't go to the police. So there is, you know, a whole set
of--or people who are, and have been witnesses to crimes are
afraid to go to the police because they may not be in status in
the country.
I think that due process and distrust in immigrant
communities with local law enforcement is really affected. So
my question is: Are there any plans in pushing what I and other
Members have advocated for, and California has done through the
Trust Act, to all secure communication jurisdictions?
Mr. Ragsdale. Well, if I understand your question
correctly, obviously the State legislative process is obviously
taken on a state-by-state tack. Obviously, you know, that
process is something separate and distinct from what the agency
does. What I will say is, it is probably important to note
Secure Communities is and isn't. Secure Communities is a
biometric information sharing between DHS and the FBI. It is
not, in and of itself, an enforcement or deportation program.
It is an information-sharing program. Certainly, sharing
biometric data is something that, just across the law
enforcement spectrum, I think everyone recognizes is of great
import. It certainly takes a lot of the issues around
biographic information sharing in terms of name-spelling and so
forth and so on that, again, sort-of clarifies--or, as I said
before--sort-of gives some clarity to the process.
So, again, I think one has to go back and look at the
removal numbers and the stated priorities that ICE is executed
against to see that the work our men and women are doing--and,
again, in a process that there are many, many different views
are really focused on our stated priorities: Criminal aliens,
fugitives, recent border entrants, and folks that present the
greatest danger to public safety. The numbers bear that out.
Ms. Sanchez. One more question, Madam, if you will indulge
me? I am sorry.
Assistant director, I have been notified by some of my
colleagues that an ICE processing facility in El Centro,
California will be closing in June. ICE has told the over 500
employees there that they must starting looking for new
employment because a new facility is being constructed and
operations will be transferred there. It is my understanding
that not one of those employees will be guaranteed employment
at the new facility, and that applying for the position won't
be an option for most because the new facility requires
different certifications.
So I am really concerned with the lack of transparency that
has occurred during this transition, and I would like to ask
you if ICE has requested an economic impact report for that
closure in El Centro. For those of you who don't know El
Centro, it has probably got the highest unemployment area--it
is Imperial Valley--the highest unemployment of all of
California. So it has a deep, deep impact when you see 500 jobs
lost. Can your comment to that, please?
Mr. Ragsdale. Sure. So there is probably a little confusion
about exactly what is going on in El Centro.
Ms. Sanchez. Well, that is why we are asking.
Mr. Ragsdale. I understand. So thank you for your question.
We are actually looking to operate our detention facilities in
places that not only meet our standards, but certainly looking
at the cost per day. The El Centro facility, the SBC, is
something that the Government owns.
Ms. Sanchez. What government?
Mr. Ragsdale. We do, ICE owns it. But we find that for
facilities owned by the Government the per-day rate is more
expensive than we see in contract facilities. Also, the
contract facility at El Centro has some--it is a blended
workforce between contractors and Feds. So we have actually
gone into a competitive procurement process and found another
location in the same community that can provide the same
service at a cheaper price. That is the process that is going
on.
So it is not a question of removing jobs from the El Centro
area. It is really just getting the same service that meets our
detention standards at a better price.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam.
Mrs. Miller. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
I will just comment that I know we have a number of--on the
Northern Border, a number of our county sheriffs that provide
the detention beds. That contract service, works out very, very
well for ICE and certainly for the counties, as well. Which
means for the taxpayers, overall. So I think that is an
important consideration.
But, again, certainly you heard all of us thank you both,
and ask you to extend our thanks to all the men and women that
serve in your agencies. We certainly recognize their bravery
and their--everything that they--the challenges that they face
each and every day. We are very appreciative of that. I think,
evidenced by this, by these two pieces of legislation the
Congress also recognizes some of the weaknesses that we have.
We need to correct them, and really delineate your
authorizations and your responsibilities, and help you however
we can. So we appreciate both of you coming today. We look
forward to the mark-up of both of these bills in the very near
future. If there are any other questions from any of the
Members on the subcommittee here we will forward them to you
and ask that you would respond to those, as well.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(e), the hearing record will be
held open for 10 days. Without objection, the committee stands
adjoined.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]