>> given the selection of parliamentary candidate, is it a legitimate concern of this -- [shouting] with the prime minister agree with me that the voting irregularity should be looked at as a matter of urgency? >> order. order. the question is about a party matter. is not about a government responsibly. not a matter. not a matter for the prime minister. complete waste of time. mr. peter bone. >> mr. speaker, the all party group against human trafficking has raised the awareness of modern-day slavery to a great level. i'm delighted to report last night, 158 audible, write audible members of this house and the of the house attended. that is a credit to the prime minister's personal commitment to this. would he consider a tax -- a

modern slavery act? >> i pay tribute on the member for the consistent work that he is done on this vital issue. it is really important that we wipe out modern-day slavery, and i very much enjoyed going to meet with him and other members in the house of commons in order to see just how bad the situation is but we're looking a legislative option and i will be chairing a committee across government to look at what more can be done. >> one of my constituents and her three year-old child has become homeless due to the most heinous domestic violence and is living and working in this country for four years. immigration technicality has made them destitute. will the prime minister please examine this legislation and its possibly unintended consequences so its future no woman and her child may suffer double abuse? >> i'm very happy to look at the individual case that the

honorable lady raises and it does link to the last question about modern-day slavery where sometimes immigration rules have caused difficulty for those who want to flee the people are keeping them in track and announced some very happy to take up the individual cases. >> with my right to honorable gentleman agree that manchester's highlights the importance of the government's quiet revolution of patient empowerment and accountability we need to modernize the nhs? >> i think my honorable friend is right there on the huge grant and believe in our nhs and it is best it provides the best care in the world. and incredible compassion for them t who use it but we don't serve the nhs if we hide or cover up with our difficulties in individual hospitals. clearly, they were in stafford, and we read today of course there are in other hospitals, too big as one of the reform of the cqc and the chief inspector of hospitals poses or because

why the friends and family test will be applied in every part of every hospital overtime. i think will make a real difference and it is in stark contrast to what we had under the last government where inspectors were basically told not to service problems because it somehow embarrassing for the government. >> was it is conceptually set up the office of police and crime commissioners that a fine chief constable should have a career cut short by vindictive bully who told her to resign or he would humiliate her? >> the point of having police and crime commissioners is to make sure there is proper accountability, and police constables have to account to a local person and that is why a number of former labour members of parliament stood for this post but in some cases like john prescott, the people of his region saw sense and rejected him. >> order.

statement -- >> here on c-span2 will be the british house of commons now as they move onto other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament is in session. you ca can see this week's quesn time again sunday night at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org or click on c-span series for prime ministers questions plus links international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recent data, putting programs dealing with other international issues. >> tonight, booktv in primetime features a look at personal reflections.

>> making transition from journalism to books is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening come about wonderful. speak why did you make that choice because i made that that choice because i've long wanted working on a book just because the freedom that allows you to dive into a topic and the juice up and go off on tangents, and have enough time to really explore it fully. >> sunday, taboo sciences, living in space, the afterlife, best selling author mary roach will take the calls come in us the comments and tweets, in

depth three hours late sunday at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. >> a customs and border protection official has confirmed the congress that after foreign nationals crossed the border into the u.s., the agency does not track their exits. this house oversight subcommittee on port security is to a half hours. >> committee will come to order. good morning. i would like to begin this hearing is stating the oversight committee mission statement. we exist to secure to fundamental principles. first, americans have the right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent and second, americans deserve an efficient and effective government that works for them to our duty on osha and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government.

we will work tirelessly with watchdogs to deliver the facts the american people and to bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. good morning, and i thank everybody for coming to attend this thing which is entitled order security oversight, identifying and responding to the current threats. i would also like to thank my colleagues who are here and the people in the audience for joining us today. much of the current immigration reform debate has centered on the importance of the border security. the conversation is not focused enough on how to secure the border in the most effective manner. today's hearing will examine a variety of threats to u.s. border security from illegal entrants to drug trafficking organizations, potential national security briefing. this hearing also examines how to measure each of these risks and the most effective responses to the threats we confront. the department of homeland security is responsible for controlling and guarding the borders of the united states.

the department operational responsibility includes preventing and investigating and legal movements across our border, including the smuggling of people, drugs, cash and weapons. the secure fence act of 2006 which intended to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders in the united states authorizes the department of homeland security to take necessary and appropriate actions to secure the u.s. borders. from 2006-2012 the security measures implement it to help achieve operational control of the u.s. borders have cost the taxpayers a price and $75 billion. despite spending tens of dozens of taxpayer dollars to secure the border, the government accountable office reported in 2011 that there was 1129 miles of the 1954-mile long southwest border, roughly 6% of the border where border patrol can actually quote deter or detect and apprehend illegal entries at the

border itself. 6% operational control. the lack of operational control documented by gao directly contradicts statements made by the administration that the border is the most secure that it has ever been. after gao reported low levels of operational control, dhs changes post to make the number of apprehensions the measure of effectiveness. the number of apprehensions which gauges uses as its metrics now does not indicate whether federal government efforts to secure the border are actually achieving operational control. they're not. one of the fundamental questions i have is if the rising apprehension, apprehensions is increasing, does that mean the board is more secure or does that mean the border is less secure? if the number of apprehensions is declining does that mean the board is less secure or does that mean the border is more secure? i asked the attorney general this question. attorney general holder said you

cannot draw conclusions based solely on apprehension. i've asked the sector of homeland security who didn't really give a thorough answer to that question. is something we need to explore. not to play gotcha but to try to come up with the metrics that we can all live with and windows metrics change, you can't compare them to past performance. that's something we need to explore. since the gratian of the department of homeland security the committee's oversight efforts have examined the effective use of taxpayer dollars at the border. while the department is working hard to secure the border, there are examples of wasteful spending. for instance, sbinet which was intended to improve video surveillance at the border has cost the taxpayers roughly $1.2 billion. but sbinet has been deemed a failure. on april 22 the fourth of this year, members and staff of house oversight government reform committee, including myself, traveled the yuma, nogales,

arizona, to assess the federal government's most recent efforts to secure the border. i appreciate the men and women that we interact with. we had a very productive trip. the committee also visited the detention facility in arizona. the committee learned individuals classified as otm, how the department classifies people, otm stands for other than mexican, accounted for roughly 900 inmates from 60 different countries out of a progeny 1500 in the detention facility. in other words, more than half of the people at the detention facility were not mexicans. they were from 60 different countries. for those that assume that the border probably isn't a problem with mexico, that is just not true. there's nothing statistical that would support that, and certainly if you look at the detentions, it is a much bigger and broader problem than just people coming north from mexico.

it is a bigger broader problem. based on our conversations with cbc officers in yuma and nogales and other cities, it appears to be an increasing trend of otm's moving across the southwest border. a significant are coming from latin america, india, china and other parts of europe and asia and other countries. border patrol officers on the ground also told the committee about potential problems to immigration system. it appears the judicial process for a solemn request when the governments issuance of the one and b-2 visas may contain some very serious flaws. during our trip to the border we also from the government continues to identify new and emerging threats to secure the border. including the drug cartels use of semi submersible vessel and all to let aircraft and their construction of underground tunnels. even right in the heart of nogales they still recently

found another tunnel going right in the heart of the city. today can we help not only to discuss these threats but also responses to some of these risks including the use of effective drones, strategic placement of troops and others, technology which can successfully be implement it along the border, whether through technology or border between agents, we must allocate the necessary resources to secure the border. but anyway that is smart, strategic and ensures that we do not waste taxpayer dollars. i want to emphasize, and i commend the support, commend the work and support of our law enforcement officers and victories different agencies. they do amazing work and exceptionally difficult conditions. we cannot thank them enough for their good hard, diligent work. it is tough, tough work. today's discussion should focus on understanding the threats are borders and how we should respond to each of the children i look forward to hearing from our witnesses for productive conversation about securing the borders of the united states. however, i am disciplined that

the associate director for refugee asylum and international operations with the u.s. citizenship and immigration services has refused to testify before this subcommittee today. the committee requested his attendance and participation in hearing 13 days ago, on june 42013. sorry, june 14 of this year the this by providing essential, essentially a two-week notice to testify before the subcommittee, the u.s. citizenship and immigration services has declined to do. asserting due to the lack of sufficient notice to prepare and clear testimony as well as prepare a suitable witness, uscis will be unable to appear at the upcoming june 27 hearing on border security. i want to thank the four other people from the other agencies who were able to prepare, who did come and were briefed, and

who are joining us today. i find it totally unacceptable that with 13 days notice, that is not sufficient time to prepare to testify in congress about what you do every day. and the job and responsibility that you have for your own department and agency. so i think those that are here. we duly note the person who is not here, and find that acceptable. the american taxpayers deserve answers to the important questions before this subcommittee today. we have left the seat open hoping to witness what appeared today, but it appears as if he is not. again, thank you for the agencies that are here today. i also want to thank and commend my colleague trade county for his work. he is the chairman of judiciary of the subcommittee that deals with immigration. as we move forward in giving with the problem that is immigration from a legislative standpoint, it is critical that we get the border security portion right. every bit of legislation, whether it's in the senate or

the house has always focused on how are we going to secure the border? how do we should american people of the border is secure? there has been legislation that was passed, in 2006, that dealt with supposedly securing the border and defense. yet only 6% operational control. earlier we pass legislation that would ensure a viable entry-exit system. we have known. that's a problem. we need to discuss that today. so i look forward to the congress tackling immigration reform. it is much needed. we need to understand what's happening at the border and we appreciate those that are here today. does anybody have an opening statement they would like to make? members? members may have seven days to submit opening statement for the record, but we will never get as our first panel. mr. michael fisher is the chief of the u.s. border patrol.

mr. david murphy is the assistant commissioner for customs and border patrol office of field operations. mr. thomas homan, did i say that properly? is executive associate rector of ice enforcement and removal operations, and rebecca gambler is the director for homeland security and justice of the government accountability office. again, we thank you all for being here today. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses will be sworn before they testify. would you please stand and raise your right hand. [witnesses were sworn in] let the record reflec reflect te witnesses answered in the affirmative. you may be seated. in order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony if he would've five

minutes. your anti-written statement would be a part of the rugby we will give you some latitude but again i want to thank you for being here and we recognize mr. fisher first. >> chairman chaffetz, ranking member tierney and other testing which members of the subcommittee, it is indeed an honor and a privilege to be before you today to discuss the identification and response to current threats. as cbp prepares for 2014 operations, the u.s. border but will continues to be guided by the three pillars our strategy. information, integration and rapid response. current intelligence estimates suggest that transnational criminal organizations and the networks that support them continue to exploit the border in arizona and south texas. for the first time in over a decade ethical cross-border activity is more prevalent in south texas and any other corridor along the southwest border. today, activity in south texas accounts for approximate 34% of

all of us along the southwest border. it is also noteworthy to recognize as the chairman pointed out that 60% of these arrests are from nationals from some other country and mexico. in particular the top three sending countries are guatemala, honduras and alfalfa door. however, -- el salvador. even with elevated activity in rio grande valley, and immigration rate is approximate 40% less than what was in 1997. we continue to mature our integrated operations in each corridor with our federal, state and local and tribal partners. protecting the citizens against those that would do us harm does not begin nor end of the border. we can achieve border security alone. as the instrument transition of activity shifted to south texas, we took the following actions. we directed most academy classes and those agents to south texas,

increasing the overall agent boots on the ground in high-risk areas such as rio grande valley. we redeployed approximate 100 pieces of technology to south texas from other southwest border sectors. these were equipment such as ground sensors, surveillance systems and thermal imaging systems. and as you may recall, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with the department of defense to allow the transfer of detection and monitoring equipment from the military to cbp. with the drawdown of forces in theater, we sought to tap us on the opportunity to reuse equipment at the taxpayers have already paid for to assist front-line agents. accordingly, we recently delivered the first installment of this equipment to the field. 220 for detection and monitoring systems that have been inventoried and sent to the southwest border, 75% of which went to south texas. in march of this year we initiated vulnerability

assessment flights along the southwest border, utilizing cbp's predator b's, equipped with synthetic radar for broader situational awareness. today, we have developed more than 80 target voters up coming approximate 329 contiguous miles. and support of this effort we continue to leverage geospatial intelligence collection to augment our own organic capabilities. in conclusion, mightiness design and implement a formidable strategy and we continue to learn and adjust our tactics, techniques and procedures as conditions on the ground dictate. i stand by my convictions that given the operational flexibility to match capability to threat we will reduce the likelihood of attack against the nation, and continue to provide the requisite safety and security to the citizens who deserve no less. thank you, given for the opportunity to testify can today and i look forward to answering your questions. spent thank you. alan auerbach s. mr. murphy for five minutes.

>> good morning, chairman chaffetz, establishment of the subcommittee, thank the opportunity to appear before you today but i appreciate the committee's leadership and commitment to ensuring the security of the american people and look forward to discussing the progress that we've made in securing the border. we defined a secure border at our nation's ports of entry as a well managed border where medicaid is our identified and addressed and legitimate trade and travel are expedited. every day we carry out our mission to protect the people and economy of the united states by preventing dangerous people and goods from entering the country while expediting legitimate trade and travel that is the lifeblood of our economy at 329 points of entry. traffic at our ports of entry differs by confinement, which can encompasses their land and sea, type, travel or cargo, and noted transportation, commercial or general aviation, personally owned vehicles, pedestrians,

trucks, containerized, packaged or both. in each of these environments and each activity presents a different set of challenges with respect to threats, volume and timing of processing. last year from cbp welcomed more than 350 million passengers and process to .3 trillion total trade value. we are seeing volume increases in all environments and anticipate volume to continue as the economy recovers. one of the most substantial gross is in the air and by what we've seen a volume increase 12% since 2009. it's important to the vast majority of this traffic compliance with all rules and regulations enforced by cbp. our goal is to identify and interview those travelers instruments that may present a risk. while facilitating the vast majority of legitimate traffic. we are working to find and stop the proverbial needles in a haystack while the haystack is moving. we continue to improve our ability to do this and to focus our finite resources on those people and goods that present

the highest potential risk. in additio addition to refiningk basin led approach to security can we afford to extend our borders outward. and to -- before they reach the 20. dhs in cooperation with her in agency and partners now screens people and goods earlier in the process before boarding passengers or loading cargo onto planes or vessels destined to the united states. since 2009, cbp has expanded its predeparture screening efforts and now checks all air travelers against government databases on all flights arriving to in departing from the united states prior to boarding the cbp has also sent our nation's borders outward. all inbound cargo manifests are screened before they are laden on the vessels with almost 85% of high-risk shipments examined or addressed before arrival at u.s. seaports. in addition to improving our ability to identify and mitigate

potential high-risk travel and trade, cbp remains focused on identifying ways to facilitate the growing volume of people and goods entering into the united states. we have seen a marked facilitation improvements through a series of transformations initiatives that increase the speed of our processing, including the expansion of the trusted traveler and trusted trader programs to the elimination of paper forms and increased use of technologies. we will continue to aggressively pursue these strategies which both increase security and streamline the border process for people and goods. these types of programs and enhanced management tools have not only increase our ability to facilitate lawful travelers but also provided significant security benefits. for example, we have had limited the number of acceptable travel documents and increase our ability to identify at our land ports resulting in a decrease use of fraudulent documents and attempts by inadmissible persons to enter through our ports. as we refine are targeting and addiction efforts along the southwest border, transnational

criminal organizations have begun to use unique and nontraditional deep concealment smuggling methods using smaller loads. ever improving interdiction efforts by cbp continue to force these organizations to attend an area of more costly and often less successful smuggling techniques. in 2009 and 2010, we focus our agricultural protection efforts on increasing intersection of our highest agricultural risk, agent ships in mock antibiotic these tests have left undetected result in millions of dollars in economic damage. in the year following his nationwide train whistle record levels of interceptions and continue to maintain those levels of interceptions today. the state of border security continues to improve at our ports of entry. we've made tremendous progress and are well posture against terrorist threats, have a push our security measures beyond our immediate borders and we're pushing a robust strategy to optimize our current business practices. in short, we have maintained an

increase our mission effectiveness while facing increasing demands for growing passenger and freight often, and we continue to seek ways to improve. chairman, ranking member tierney, vice chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions, thank you spent now recognize mr. homan for five minutes. >> good morning, chairman chaffetz, ranking member tierney, and establishment of the subcommittee. only half of secretary napolitano, doctor morton, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the significant progress i.c.e. and teaches has made to secure our border as you may know and six is the principal and that's give agency within dhs and the second largest in the federal government. the men and women at i.c.e. play critical role in securing the border and turning out smart, effective immigration and foreign policy. i.c.e. consists of three operational progress. enforcement, homeland security

investigations, and the office of the principal legal advisor. hs i investigate a wide range of crimes that arise in a ligament in a people and goods into come within and out of the nest is. in his will as a program that identifies apprehends, detains and removes the and subject to removal from the united states the person to the privatized enforcement principles. i have been a federal law enforcement officer for 29 years. 27 of which have been spent in immigration enforcement. over the years i've seen and worked the entire lifecycle of immigration enforcement. i have served on the front lines of the borders agent to i tackled smuggling organizations. and now focus on smart enforcement at the backend process, that being removed daily and estates. over the past four years i.c.e. has focused reef forces -- resources. those breweries include people who are threat to national

security and public safety. such as convicted criminals, and those who obstruct immigration controls. this focus has led to unprecedented success of the glass your i.c.e. removed almost 410,080 and. some 55% of them had criminal convictions. this is almost double the number of criminals in 2008. 96% of those aliens fit within the priority categories i mentioned above. said that though, i'll reforms of recent made our community safer. i.c.e. governments the detention operation in our field offices on the border in nationwide. operational needs on the southwest border can change quickly and i.c.e. is a policy and infrastructure in place to meet those needs. the successes i mentioned today could not been achieved without the application of smart effective and efficient policy issued by secretary napolitano and director morten. of course, we must work closely with her partners in order to meet our goals. for instance, 44% of i.c.e.

detainees came from the cbp. our joint efforts are critical to the nation's border enforcement agents and i'm proud of the rudderless ship i with my colleagues i'm canceling with today. another part of our common to smart effective immigration enforcement are the major reforms we have made to the detention system to all of our reforms health insurance individuals and isetan population are held a program classified according to the risk of we put in place strong safeguards against abuse and assure that detainees have access to health care and legal resources. all of the success i have outlined today had been the result of reasonable immigration policies and priorities. even in the senate budget and and certainly we are using our resources and a smart, effective and responsible manner. we are making the public safer by targeting our resources where they are needed most. thank you again for inviting me to testify. i am pleased to answer any questions you may have. thank you.

>> [inaudible] >> efforts to secure the border. since 2004, dhs has increased resources allocated to securing borders. for example, in fiscal year 2004, the border patrol had over 10,000 agents. in fiscal year 2011, there were over 21,000 agents. similarly the number of customs and border protection officers stationed at ports of entry has increased from over 17,000 in 2004, th more than 20,000 in fil year 2011. further, dhs has deployed technology and infrastructure to border areas. today, i will focus my remarks on three key areas in which gao has assessed the hs's efforts to secure our nation's borders.

first, i will highlight our work reviewing gao's efforts to assess its border security activities. suck and i'll discuss gao's work reviewing in agency coordination efforts. and third i will highlight gao's work on dhs management of technology assets for securing the border. with regard to my first point, border patrol data show that from 2006-2011, apprehensions within each southwest border sector declined. border patrol unattributed this decrease degrees factors such as changes in u.s. economy and increases in resources. fiscal year 2012 data reported by the border patrol indicate that apprehensions across the southwest border increased from fiscal year 2011, but it is too early to assess whether this increase indicates a change in trend. further, from fiscal year 2006-2011, estimated in illegal entries in the southwest border sector also declined.

in addition to data on apprehension, other data collected by the border patrol are used by sector management to inform assessment of its efforts. these data include among other things the percentage of estimated know and illegal entrants were apprehended more than once which is referred to as the recidivism rate, and contraband presaged up with regard to the recidivism rate our analysis at border patrol data show that the rate decreased across southwest border sectors between fiscal years 2008-2011. with regard to drug and other contraband seizures, the number of seizures increased by 83% from fiscal year 2006-2011. since 2011, dhs has used the number of apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as an interim performance measure and -- this measure provides some useful information but does not position the department to be able to report i have effected

its efforts are at securing the border come resulting in reduced oversight and dhs accountability. the border patrol is in the process of developing goals and measures. however, it is not that target time frames for completing its efforts. we recommended the border patrol established such time frames to help ensure that the voting of goals and measures are completed in a tiny mini. the department agreed with our recommendations and stated that it plans to establish such time frames by november 2013. with regard to my second point, dhs and other agencies have reported improvements in interagency coordination of border enforcement operations. for example, federal partners responsible for securing federal lands along the borders have sided increase information sharing and communication. however, our work has also identified opportunities for improvements in or consistent application of existing interagency agreement and stronger oversight of interagency forums for border security.

finally, dhs has deployed technology and for structure and other assets the u.s. borders it however tedious as face a number of challenges and effectively plan for and managing its technology programs and other assets. for example, our work has shown that dhs to better document the analysis it is used to determine the type, quantities implications of technology it plans to deploy to the southwest border under this new technology plan. further, cbp has not yet defined performance metrics for assessing of imitation of its new technology plan, hindering cbp's efforts to assess the effectiveness of the plan going forward. in closing, our work has a different opportunities for dhs to strengthen its border security programs and efforts. we've made a number of recommendations to the department to address various challenges and to enhance management of the border security related programs. dhs has generally concurred with our recommendations and is taking action to address them. we will continue to monitor dhs's efforts in these areas.

this concludes my prepared statement and i would be pleased to answer any questions that members may have. >> thank you but i will recognize my cell for five minutes. ms. gambler, isn't there to say that there are no metrics to determine how secure or insecure the border is currently? >> currently the department is using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as its goal image for border security. >> that's an incomplete measure, would you agree? >> that measure does not allow, position the border patrol to be able to assess the effectiveness of its efforts because it doesn't compare apprehensions to estimated entrance. >> thank you very much. mr. murphy, my understanding is we have no entry-exit system, particularly at the land-based ports to gauge whether, who is coming in and who's going out, correct? >> well, no, sir. i wouldn't say that's completely correct. i think we have made some significant improvements, and

sophistication and entrance. obviously, that's been the focus as far as the exit. we're working on the. that's a significant issue. we are well aware of it and we are right now -- >> do you have any statistic to show how many people actually leave the country? >> no, sir. right now our outbound -- >> my understanding is the majority of these is that this country offers, what called b1, b2 into exit. i sat and watched this. thousands of people in nogales and yuma streamed into the country. in fiscal year 2011, my understanding is we approved the state department 4.3 million of these cards. where people are supposed to be in the country temporarily, right? >> yes, sir. >> how many people came into the country using a b1, b2 into exit visa card? >> i don't have that number

>> iisn't something the agency has? >> oh, yes. we track what comes in. it's what's going out that right and when you get a better handle on. >> when you say better have them do you track any of them going a? >> right now our outbound operations are basically geared towards intelligence. >> that's not what i asked. >> no, we don't. >> we are leading millions of people, roughly almost a million a day into the country to quit no idea how many are going out. is that fair to say? >> yes, sir. >> this is current law, right what's it is current law we're supposed to have an entry exit program? why do we have an exit program? >> -- why don't we have an exit program? >> we are working on it. >> look, you have been there -- how long have you been in the agency? >> twenty-nine years. >> why don't we have an exit program? it's not good enough to just smile at me.

>> no, sir. i don't have a good answer for you but we know it's an issue. >> is it a funding issue? is a lack of commitment? is there not a viable software? if you are telling me where gauging when they come into the country, why aren't we gauging when they go out of the country? >> well, sir, i think it's a huge issue and, unfortunately, it's a costly issue, too. we would have to replicate what we have coming into the country at ports of entry almost -- in order to properly get our arms economic about the issue. >> we are told% of the people who are here illegally came their legal. when when we don't have a viable exit system and there are no metrics, there's no information, there's not even an attempt to try to gather some names, i am really concerned about this entry exit program. i'm really concerned about the b1 b2 visa. i think it's the untold story of the immigration problem and the mess that we have. when the majority of the visas

given out for this country are given via the b1, b2, which about fiscal year 2011, they're only supposed to -- what's the rules? you were only supposed to go a certain 10 miles or something with an entry exit card, correct? >> i think it is 25 and the witches increased recently. recently. >> why? why did we increase it? to what? >> i believe in new mexico it is 55 miles. >> in certain parts of the country only supposed to go 10 miles, right? some to 25 are now using in part of new mexico you can go 55 miles. do we do any monitoring of that? >> no, sir. >> so we gauge -- there's no monitoring. we just do it on your word. we give millions of these out. we issued 4.3 million entry exit cards in 2011. how many cards are out there? when you get a car, how long is a good for? is about for a year or valid for

ever, do you know? >> i don't authenti often but iw that there is, they put a date on how it is valid for, yes, sir. >> so there are millions of these cards after the just the honor system right now, right? you are supposed to come back. but you are not gauging even a single person as to whether not they are returning? >> we are not catching that right now. >> all right. my time is expired. i never denies the gentlewoman from wyoming for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman but i also want to thank the gentleman and lady for being here today. my questions are going to concentrate on since -- concentrate on defense as a mechanism to stop trains land crossing. habit, this is to any of you, as the fence between california and mexico improved the crossing of

non-documented workers and illegals? mr. fisher, you are nodding your head. >> yes. the fence in a particular you mentioned san diego, has had an impact in reducing the flow of people into the united states in those areas where we do have fence spent how much of the fence is completed on the arizona-mexico border? >> in total, there's about six or 52 miles across the southwest border that has been completed some of that is pedestrian fence and some of that is vehicle veers. i'm not really sure specifically in arizona how much of that, arizona asian has about 260 miles of border. within those urban areas in douglas and nogales, out to both east and west ports of entry that has been extended a significant number of miles. >> do you believe that completing a fence on the border between mexico and arizona would

be beneficial to preventing the flow of people and narcotics across the border? >> i do in some locations. >> and what locations would those be? specifically, along the arizona-mexico border. >> it would be in those areas where the networks and the criminal organizations like to exploit the legitimate infrastructure that exists. >> what kind of -- such a? what is legitimate infrastructure and? >> if you think of the smuggled or position much like a business, trying to move the commodity whether that's people or narcotics, through the borders and out of the border areas. of infrastructure that requires them to do that is road system, its airports, bus stations and all that legitimate infrastructure that supports the committees within the border areas. >> what about wilderness areas? when we don't have fences, where you have been restricted by

other u.s. agencies from using motorized vehicles on wilderness areas and the offending parties are using vehicles, making it difficult for you to apprehend them. is that problematic to? >> in some areas. i wouldn't qualify it as problematic. ththat are areas as you mentiond public lands in arizona which prohibit in most situations on steady-state deployment on motorized vehicles. but we do have an intervention an agreement with the department of the interior and fish and wildlife to be able to go onto those areas based on intelligence, if we know that there is activity. so we are allowed onto those areas to basically track individuals that come across. spin so you have to get agreement with another federal agency to gain access to federal ban on our side of the border? >> the agreement has already been set.

in other words, the in other words, the memorandum of understanding allows us to go onto those lines. some of that public land is protected under the environmental laws. it's just we had the agreement that we are allowed to go in when we're actually working the border. >> so you can pursue somewhat? >> yes, we can. >> but can you protect aboard a? can you patrol the border? >> in most areas we can. >> with vehicle's? >> yes. we do with vehicles, with horseback. a lot of the tech action -- a lot of the deduction is made from the air, also. >> the tucson border has been an area where we have seen significant crossings. >> that's correct. ..

>> one is the investment and additional technology. detecting and monitoring -- >> you know, we've seen some technology reports that some of the technology has failed and was expensive, and its failure has not necessarily been corrected. how's that going? >> are you referring to -- >> the sbi net? what is the department's plan to improve that technology? the border radar system? >> about three years ago when the sbi was being assessed, secretary napolitano asked cbp and in particular border patrol to make an assessment on whether

we should continue exploring that kind of technology that sbi had planned -- >> $1.2 billion as i understand has been pent on that? >> that sounds about right, yes, ma'am. >> and you're assessing now whether that is going forward in a productive way? >> we made that assessment, and our recommendation to the secretary, which she agreed to, was to invest more in the mobile technology and not to invest things like sbi net which were more static. >> my time has expired. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. many fisher, will you, please, provide to this committee the interagency working agreements on your ability to patrol and pursue, um, potentially people that are here illegally on public lands that are designated wilderness or similar, wilderness study areas, those types of things, organ pipe, for

instance, would be an area. is that something you can provide to this committee? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> how long would that take to get to us? >> i'll take that back as an action item right after the hearing, sir. >> when's a reasonable time for you to -- >> far be it for me -- >> yes, you're in charge here. you make a decision. what's the date? >> uh -- >> all right. july 3 you would. is that fair? >> you read my mind, sir. [laughter] >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, mr. chairman. chief fisher, just out of curiosity, can you give me a rough number of how large or how many border patrol agents there were when you started with the agency 26 years ago? >> there was less than 3,000, sir. >> less than 3,000. >> yes, sir. >> the reason i ask that, i remember we gave big increases in funding for border control in

the '90s and then now, of course, we've heard ms. gambler say that since 2004 we've gone from 10,000 agents to 21,000, i think it was. and, of course, now the senate has passed an amendment saying that we're supposed to double that again. and, frankly, i know you can never satisfy any government agency's appetite for money or land, but i'm really skeptical as to whether we can efficiently, effectively spend all the money that we're throwing at this effort and increase the number of agents that much that quickly. what do you say about that, commissioner murphy? how big was customs when you started 29 years ago? >> sir, i -- to be honest --

>> you don't know. >> i don't even know what that number is. >> yes. >> but, obviously, as you indicate, there's, you know, significant work to be done, and, but it's the determination of the right network, i mean, that's obviously something that i think's going to have to be decided -- >> well, isn't the number coming across in large part determined by the economy and so the economy in mexico and the economy here? because i read that during our downturn that the numbers coming across greatly decreased as, and there were more people or a lot of people who had come here illegally were going back to mexico or other countries. is that true? >> well, sir, as you may be aware, one thing that we've done to try to transform the way we look at the border and the way we look at the numbers that we need, we created a workload staffing model. this takes a hundred different data elements and over a million calculations that takes into account the current volume of

activity, apprehensions, seizures, hours of operation, how many folks that are on board now, and it basically takes that number, and it's a very dynam process. it'll tell you based upon that workload this is -- and the time it takes to do those different functions in the workload how many bodies that you need. the nice thing about this one, not a static process, it's a very dynamic process. so in the case you're indicating say you see an uptick of activity at a port of entry or an area for a year or two, that workload staffing number will dictate what that number should be based upon that workload. if it moves to a different area, the staffing model will also readjust. >> let me stop you. a lot of what you said is very bureaucratic, and i've got just a little bit of time left. mr. homan, what do you say about the statement by ms. gambler that because of the transition

from using operational control and so forth that she says, therefore, until new goals and measures are developed, dh, and and congress could experience reduced oversight in dhs accountability? what do you say about that? a pretty serious charge really. >> >> yes. i can say our operational template now, we're shoulder to shoulder with the border principal. our level of collaboration's never been higher. my staff meets once a week talking about enforcement strategies on the border. as a matter of business, we detain all recent border entrants. so i think we're doing the right thing. with the resources we have, i think we're executing the mission at all time high. i mean, my arrests are at a record high, removals are at a record high, detentions are at a record high, and i think the mission of us and border patrol

working hand in hand, i think it makes sense. >> the chairman mentioned 4.3 million coming across just on one program. can anybody on the panel tell me how many people are having this country legally each year? does anybody have a -- ms. gambler, do you know anything about that? somebody should know that, surely. >> we could provide that number to you for the record, sir. i don't know it off the top of my head. >> all right. and what are the latest estimates as to how many are coming across illegally? surely this panel should know something like that. your latest guesses or estimates. >> our estimates right now, sir, we're averaging approximately this fiscal year in fy-13 approximately 11 to00 ap -- 1100 apprehensions. if you look a at that known

flow, we don't have those estimates right now, but we are working towards getting that as well. >> well, i think that's something you should provide to us as soon as you get it. >> agreed. >> all right. thank you very much. >> following up on that, mr. fisher, how many turnback souths per day? >> um, i'd have to go back. i don't know specifically what that number is, but we do track that, and i can get that -- >> how many gotaways? >> i can do that as well. the effectiveness rate along the southwest border right now is around 75%. >> again, i really challenge that number as i think the gao does. those are just the known gotaways, right? does not include turnback souths or tbss? >> it includes all those variables, sir. that is effectiveness formula. when you take a look at the apprehensions, you add those to your turnbacks and divide those by your total entries.

that is the effectiveness rate, and we're working -- >> that assumes that we -- what about the ones we're not aware of? >> right. so there's two different methodologies we use. i mentioned earlier in my testimony about the use of the predator bees is to really do just that,. shrink the border, increase our spatial awareness so we can cover a lot more of that border. >> now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, the always-dapper mr. goudy. >> chairman chaffetz shared a bit of notes my a couple nights ago at dinner, and he said if you don't know where you're going, you probably won't know when you get there. yeah, that's what he said. ms. gambler, i am asked constantly about border security. so tell me what is an ambitious

but reasonable goal with respect to border security to the extent that it is a condition precedent to any other part of immigration reform. what are we looking for? >> congressman, setting a goal for border security would be the responsibility of dhs or would be -- >> i know. but i'm asking if you were 'em press for the day, what would you do? what's a realistic but ambitious goal? >> again, that's a responsibility for the department to set that goal -- >> and i appreciate -- >> policy call for congress. as would be the case for any bill, gao's role would be to review the implementation of any provisions or programs that the executive branch might implement resulting from a bill if we were asked to do so. >> how long have you worked for gao? >> i've been with gao for, since 2002. >> all right. so that's 11 years?

>> yes. >> surely you have an opinion on what is likely to work. i mean, because you probably are following the debate just like the rest of us are. before you get to any other aspect of immigration reform, they want to make sure the border is secure. that's an easy phrase to use, but it's a hard phrase to implement. so what is a realistic definition of a secure border? >> what we've recommended is that the department of homeland security set a goal for its border security efforts and then set metrics for assessing progress made against those, against that goal. dhs is in the process of developing those goals and measures and we've suggested that they set time frames for completing those goals and metrics so that there are mechanisms in place for assessing what the goal is for border security and how that can be measured. >> why is there not current will hi a goal, or am i just naive?

>> up until fiscal year 2011, dhs was using operational control as its performance goal and measure for border security. they discontinued using that measure -- >> why? >> -- fiscal year 2011. what they told us was that they wanted to move toward more quantifiable metrics for border security, and using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border was designed to be an interim measure. now, dhs said they were going to put those metrics in place by fiscal year 2012 but have been using the number of apprehensions as the interim measure. and we recommended, again, that they set time frames and milestones for completing development of those goals and measures. >> let me ask it another way. if you had to go back to your hometown and you had to stand in front of people whether or not the border was secure, what metrics would you use in answering their question? >> if i was asked that question, i would say that the d. has not yet set -- the department has not yet set goals and measures for ais'sing how secure the

border is, so that makes it difficult to assess against d. >> difficult may be an understatement. it makes it kind of hard. for those of us who are interested in getting on to the next steps of immigration reform, if you don't get over the condition precedent, it can prove to your constituents that you have a reasonable but ambitious border security goal, it makes the rest of us pretty tough. all right, these overstays, do you know how they are currently investigated? >> we issued a report on overstays in april 2011 and have ongoing work looking at overstay enforcement efforts as well. that ongoing work we'll issue in july, this next month. >> and i promise i'm going to read the report. but you already know something about the issue. >> yes. >> so currently, if mr. chaffetz were here on a visa and he overstayed, how would we know, how would we investigate it, how would we decide what we're going to do about it? what's currently being done? >> if someone, if a foreign

national enters the u.s. and there is no corresponding departure record for that person, that record would be checked against numerous dhs databases and would be prioritized against i.c.e.'s law enforcement and public safety priorities. if the person met that, those priorities, their information, their record would be sent forward for investigation to i.c.e. field offices. >> um, you wouldn't have to wait for that person to commit some other offense or have some other interaction with government, would you? surely? >> the overstays that i.c.e. is prioritizing for investigation are those that meet their public safety and national security priorities. if the person would not meet those priorities and they were likely an overstay, they would not be investigated by i.c.e.. >> mr. chairman, i was going to ask my friends in law enforcement, i was going to thank them for their service, and i was going to also ask them about what role, if any, state

and local law enforcement should play in assisting them, but i'm out of time. so i'll yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from south carolina i think would be most interested to know that based on the formula that ms. gambler just shared, the majority of visas that we give out in this country are b1, b2 entry/exits. mr. murphy testified that they don't track any of the exits, none of them. so we have absolutely zero information about who may be overstaying, who may have gone beyond the bounds because they're variable. they're only supposed to go into certain parts of the country. it's probably the biggest, gaping hole we have in our border. there's no tracking. there's no information. there's no statistics. there's no field reports. there's nothing unless that person commits a crime. and i would hope that we could provide, that the agency would be able to provide through maybe the department of justice and others a report of how many

people committed crimes that came here on a b1, b2 entry/exit visa. and somehow, some way we're going to unearth that number. but now we'll recognize the gentleman from -- mr. bentivolio, for five minutes. the gentleman from michigan. and he's now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you very much for appearing here today. really appreciate it. maybe you can help me clear up some questions i have. i keep hearing in the media we have 11 million people here that shouldn't be here. how did we arrive at that number? is that something, i mean, if you have no way of knowing who you didn't catch, how do you come up with a figure of 11 million? anybody? >> i don't know where that number comes from. >> i keep hearing it in the media. >> i've heard it as well, but i don't know the attribution where that came from. >> so it's really not 11 million, it could be more, right? >> i don't know that either.

>> we don't. we really don't know it, do we? because we don't know -- well, it's the old saying, i guess, if a crime is committed and nobody's there, how do you know the crime was committed except by evidence, right? but we don't have any evidence. something like that. anyway, i have a few other questions. what percentage of border does technology cover? >> i don't know the percentage. that's a really good question. i could find out and get back to you, sir. specifically, we have approximately 15,000 pieces of equipment covering about 17,000 miles. it doesn't cover all 17,000. that's just based on the military specks in terms of what the equipment can do. you have to take into consideration the geography and topography, but we can find that out as well. >> i also heard you have cameras that do thermal imaging, so when you detect someone that's crossing illegally, what's the response time? >> it really depends on where the entry is detected. again, depending on where we

have patrol agents, depending upon whether we do it within the first 100 meters or mile. terrain is going to dictate that. the tactics and techniques of the agents on the ground will determine where is the best way to make the approach in a safe and secure manner. >> okay. and border patrolman told me that he went out to -- there was a alert, he had to go out there, and there were 26 people, and they just scat ored. >> right. >> and my question is, how do you send one or two border patrol agents to pick up 26 people? i mean, that's -- especially in the terrain that i was in when i toured the border. >> right. >> i mean, is there another way? so he said, well, they had -- they caught three, but 23 got away. is that how we determine the number 11 million? >> i don't believe so, but earlier points are -- whether there's one border patrol agent that responds or whether there's two or three really determines how they're applying the

strategy on the ground. in some cases the border patrol agent may not know how many people, it may just be a sensor indication, so we may not have specific quantities of individuals that may have made the incursion. and many times border patrol agents are a assisted with air/ground support, our office provides overwatch for us in that regard. and our strategy is built on being able to deploy and redeploy resources for those border patrol agents if, informs, they come across a group of 23 and they run. generally what would happen more resources would be brought to bear to be able to continue to track to the extent possible to make sure that we apprehend everybody that comes across and in between the ports of entry. >> i also heard when i was there stories of hang gliders flying out of mexico, you know, the personal gliders? >> yes. >> dropping off drugs in the united states and then flying back. are you doing anything to stop that? >> yes, sir. matter of fact, we saw the -- i believe you're referring to the ultra lights over the last few years.

>> thank you. >> yes. and one of the things i alluded to earlier in my testimony, when you look at the transnational criminal organizations and networks that own and operate within the border areas, they're always going to adapt their operations to be able to increase their profit margin. and one of the things that we've seen is the ultralights. we're working with the air marine operation center in riverside, california, which gets radar feeds from throughout the united states to be able to adjust those radar to be able to detect low-flying aircraft like the ultralights. it's not perfect yet. we also have mobile surveillance systems on the ground to be able to look up to identify those ultralights as well. >> okay. and have you ever heard of the term and maybe you could explain to me what the term means, catch and release. >> catch and release, i believe, was a phrase a few years ago, and i believe it was coined perhaps maybe not the first time, but used quite a bit by secretary chertoff when he was the secretary of homeland security. it was meant when we were seeing

increases in activity in locations that part of the policy at the time as people that we were going to apprehend in between the ports of entry, we were not going to just release, but we can call on their own reconnaissance. so -- recog any zahn. recognizance. we want to maintain the policy of catching illegals that have come illegally between the ports of entry and make sure they are detained. >> okay. so a person that came here illegally you catch 'em, and then you release 'em on their own recog recognizance? >> no, sir. the current policy really was to end catch and release. >> okay. >> in other words, in some locations over the years depending upon fluctuations and funding availability for the enforcement and removal operations, individuals that would otherwise, that would request a hearing from an immigration judge, if they did not pose any risk to the public and there was no detention space

allowed, there was a provision within the administrative piece to release them on their own recog recognizance pending a hearing with an administrative judge. and that policy's adjusted depending on what resources are available, and it fluctuates in order to minimize risk. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have but one more question. >> go ahead. >> okay, great. thank you. let's see, we go to trial or go in front of a judge, and the judge would release them, correct? >> well -- >> that's -- >> generally, not to get, because i'm not the expert anymore, the real border patrol agents do the work in the field. but generally what would happen is once we made the determination, we issued a warrant of arrest and a notice to appear. that notice to appear was for an immigration hearing. >> okay. how many would come back and actually reappear before the judge or -- do you have a percentage that come back, or do they all come back or just 50%,

75%? >> i don't have that number right off the top of my head, sir, but it would depend on which year you're talking about or recently. >> it's probably closer to about 10 percent. would that be right? >> i would not want to guess at that, sir. >> request okay. thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. thank you. >> thank you. now recognize the ranking member, gentleman from presidents, mr. tierney, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank if witnesses for their testimony. sounds like you have a relatively easy job, gentlemen. [laughter] challenging, to say the least. over the last decade, the u.s. taxing payer's funded tens of billions of dollars in additional personnel, technology and infrastructure along that southwest border. i think we've installed radiation detection portals, nonintrusive imaging equipment, license plate leaders, camera systems, fencing, and the list goes on. despite the staggering sums, we know that cartels are still able

to bring illicit drugs into the country. organized crime networks still manage to smuggle various forms of contraband through these ports of entry. so nobody disputes the fact that this guns, gods and gate spending has been effective to a degree. but not all spending's equal, i guess. so what i'm to try to do as we go forward is take a look at which areas are more effective and produce better results. let me begin, if i can, with you, chief fisher, on the gates. as i understand it, building the border fence or improving the existing fence makes sense in some locations but may not make sense in others. for instance, just west of sannie sid row, california, people say it helped control illegal crossing problems there. others say it provided significant benefits in other locations, particularly in urbanized crossing corridors. does that sound accurate to you? >> it does, sir. >> ms. gambler, i also understand that gao has

questioned the effectiveness of the fence and often looks at the high cost of building the fence, and that question's been raised for a number of years. is that also true? >> in our work, congressman, we did find that dhs had not taken steps to assess or quantify the contributions that fencing is making to border security, and we recommended that they conduct a cost effective analysis to do that. >> okay. so if congress were to decide to double the size of the existing fence or at least add hundreds of additional miles to it, how would the department determine where to build that extra fence? >> i don't know where -- how they would determine where to build the fence, but they do have analysis underway to, in response to our recommendation to determine what contribution fencing is making to border security efforts. and that would been important question going forward. >> i'm guessing that it makes sense to add fencing in some areas and maybe a total waste of area in others?

is that generally true 1234. >> that would be for the department of homeland security to determine. >> mr. fisher, mr. murphy, does that sound true to you, that in some areas it would be a good investment, in others it may not be a good investment at all? >> that's accurate, sir. yes. >> are you confident in the department's ability to identify which areas are which? >> i am, yes. >> ms. gambler, there are also proposals to add new sensors, cameras all along the border. i know that gao previously reviewed some major technology problems with the sbi net and found hundreds of millions of dollars that had been squandered in that effort. there were challenges that, obviously, had to be overcome. so before we invest in that type of technology, billions of dollars or whatever, can you tell us what lessons were learned from that whole sbi net situation? >> our body of work looking at dhs' management of border security, border surveillance technologies has identified challenges in the management of that technology including the

technology being delivered on schedule and within cost parameters that were set for the technology. back in 2012 we issued a report on dhs' new plan for deploying border surveillance technologies to arizona, and one of the key findings from that report was that dhs had not fully documented the underlying analysis and justification used to support the types, quantities and locations of technologies it plans to deploy under that new plan. >> and you're comfortable that the department is responding to your reports and your recommendations? >> the department did agree with those recommendations and is taking steps to address them. we do have ongoing work reviewing that new plan and are monitoring dhs' actions to respond to our recommendations. >> so now we're talking about possibly increasing the number of agents exponentially on that basis. so what steps should the border patrol take to make sure that the increase of personnel is

effectively utilized, that they're placed in the right places in the right numbers? >> the border patrol issued its new strategic plan last year in may 2012, and as part of implementation of that plan, we understand that the border patrol is developing a process for assessing what resources are needed and how to deploy them. we understand that that process is moving forward, and they're looking to implement it in fiscal year 2013 and '14. >> mr. fisher, can you tell us a little bit more about that? >> certainly. within the framework of the strategy, we really focused our earths on -- efforts on being risk-based as opposed to just asking for more and more resources and deploying them in a lateral fashion across the southwest border. that was a strategic shift in our thinking and certainly our deployments. as we move forward, we also recognize that technology has come a long way with. i can still remember as a young agent getting the first pair of old night vision goggles from

the military after the first gulf war, and i thought at that point we were really going to make a difference in border security because at night i was able to see 5 feet in front of me. i thought that was going to change the operation by which the border patrol started back in 1924. we continue to learn and adjust with the technology, and i will tell you as good as technology is getting, and as more technology we get, it is still no replacement for a well trained border patrol agent. because at the med of the day, it doesn't married what you have flying -- matter what you have flying in the air, sensors on the ground, the border patrol agents still a lot of times alone as we have heard earlier today has to close that 50 meeters by himself or herself, and the thinking and training and those border patrol agents who as we speak right now are out there on patrol, there's no substitute for them. i'm very proud of the work that they do, and it's a combination of taking a look at the best technology, taking a look at the infrastructure and then continuing to train and support the border patrol agents is the best way, and that's the way that we're approaching the

implement tail against this new strategy. >> thank you. thank you again for your work and for your testimony here today. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. mr. gosar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chief fisher and mr. murphy, in your shared testimony you said the following: we do not use this term "operation control" as a measure of border security because the complex nature of the magnitude of different can border conditions cannot be described by a single objective measure. although an indicator of success, even the safest communities in america have some crime. if you are claiming that one objective measure is not enough to measure border security, then why is only one measure, apprehension rates, used or cited when top dhs officials try to pass off our southern border as secure? >> well, apprehension still is a metric that we, that we capture and report to the department. however, we have learned quite a

bit over the last couple of years, and i think ms. gambler talked on some of that. the apprehension number really doesn't tell you much because if you compare it and contrast it from previous fiscal years, as the chairman mentioned, if it goes up, i can say that is something, -- success, and if it goes down, i can say it's success. but you need the apprehension to then peel back the layers to understand how many people within that total population of arrests were there. because recidivism does matter. it's important to me, and it's important to the organization to distinguish those individuals who are only apprehended two times from those individuals that we apprehend perhaps six or eight times. >> would you agree, mr. murphy? >> well, sir, from our standpoint as i indicated in my testimony earlier, we look at it as a well managed border. i don't think there is one single metric. there's a variety of things that we do look at, but i think what we have tried to do is to look at transforming the way we do business, processes, bringing in new technology, trying to

basically do a better job much more efficiently, and in that way we feel that we're going to have much more success not only from a standpoint of apprehensions or seizures, but also from the standpoint of facilitating the legitimate flow of traffic and trade. >> are you aware of an experiment in which a drone actually looked at a corridor over time and looked at ap rehence rates and made a comparison of who crossed that border versus apprehension rates? are you aware of that study? >> no, sir. >> actually, it showed that there were 422 apprehensions, but in actuality there were over 7,000 people that crossed the border. are you awar of that, ms. gambler? >> we have not seen that study. >> really? and we're going to trust our border security with homeland security and we still don't understand that? how familiar are you with the numbers you're citing to the american people and the congress? >> in terms of the data we report inside our december 2011

report, we reported the data that border patrol had available available -- >> based on apprehensions. so this is showing you in this technology aspect that we're showing less than 6% actually being apprehended versus what is actually a known factor. is that true? >> again, we looked at the data that the border patrol was collecting at the time that we did the work, and we looked at number of apprehensions as well as estimated known illegal entries and presented that data. we did also identify some limitations with that data. >> and it's very ain't kuwaited. i would -- i'm just pointing out that when you're citing these studies, they're antiquated measures, and we need to have more opportunities for a diverse opportunity not just from federal government, state and locals to look at the metrics in lards to border security, would you not agree? >> and we recommended and the department is in the process of setting goals and mt. ricks for border -- metrics for border security, and we recommended they come up with time frames

for completing that effort so that the measures can be completed in a timely manner. >> and does that include state and local officials so that we have a uniform policy enforcement all the way through this country, not just on border? >> it would be for the department to set what those goals and metrics -- >> to be honest with you, ma'am, i'm not real comfortable. i'm from arizona, with and we've got some problems here. border security should be a uniform policy. and i can tell you coming from a number of people within my conference, it's not going to be left up to homeland security. it'll be a joint venture in regards to having border security. so that we see the metrics from border patrol all the way income compassing avenues of law enforcement because i think that's what the american public wants. we have limited resources. homeland security has really not restored a lot of trust. trust is a series of promises kept, and we don't find much with that with homeland security. let me ask you another question. how do you feel about border security around yuma, arizona? >> around yuma, arizona?

>> uh-huh. >> in our work when dhs was using operational control as its performance measure for border security, yuma reported that its miles were under operational control. now, that was in, up til fiscal year -- >> well, let's -- i've got to take a little leniency here because it actually is one of the shining stars, and that's the proper answer. in fact n that segment there has not been a border crossing, illegal border crossing in that 40 or 50 some miles in the yuma sector for over six years. is that not true? >> i'm not aware of that specifically, but in fiscal year 2010 -- >> when you're coming here to represent what dhs has proposed, what we need to do is have success models, and yuma is a success model. it has border fence, it has a unified application of the law from border security to law enforcement, and what's even more important is actually prosecution. is it not true that those folks from the tucson sector do not want to be pushed to the yuma

sector because they're going to get prosecuted, is that not true? >> we haven't specifically looked at that issue. >> i'm having problems once again here. i'm having somebody from homeland security that i see on a senate bill that we're going to entertain this you're going to have border security all the way through, and you have no metrics, you don't know what works, you don't cite that working, and yet you're still coming up that we're going to entrust you with border security. once again, ms. gambler, trust is a series of promises kept. tell me why i should have to trust in the dhs. i will yield back for the second round of questions. >> mr. chairman, might i just interject for a question here? ms. gambler, you're with the government accountability office, not homeland security, right? >> i'm with the government accountability office. >> thank you. so i hope that would absolve you from some of the information that was being sought of you. i think you're doing an excellent job, and i just want to clarify that she's not homeland security. the other thing i was going to

ask the gentleman, if he would produce that study that you mentioned at the beginning of your questions, could you tell us who the author was and make that available for the committee? >> you betcha. >> thank you. >> chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, ms. maloney. >> good evening and thank you for your hard work and for testimony today before the committee. i'm a, i'm concerned about commerce. not only do we need to keep bad products out and homeland security and all of that focus, but mexico's a very important trading partner to, with america. and it's our largest, it's really our third largest trading partner. and our relationship has grown tremendously since nafta and significantly in the past years. and mexico has grown to be roughly $500 billion in bilateral trade. that's important to the economy of america, and it's also sustained through the trade by some estimates six million jobs

in the united states. so it has economic value that's important to our people. and they say that u.s. sales to mexico are larger than all u.s. exports to the brick countries which are brazil, russia, india and china. so in short, trade with mexico is important for jobs. and i guess i should ask mr. murphy, isn't it true that part of your profession is not only to protect the border, but also to help facilitate trade between our two countries and at our ports of entry both land and sea? is that true? is that part of your, your goal and not only security which is number one priority, but also to allow legitimate fair trade? >> congresswoman, thank you for the question. you're absolutely right. and that's one of the finish we believe that border security and

economic prosperity go hand in hand. and we also believe, and recently there was a study done by usc that showed that by adding additional cbp personnel on to the ports of entry to help facilitate not only the border security aspect, but the trade facilitation aspect, it helps build, it takes down, it adds to the gdp. it also takes for lost opportunity costs, it reduces those. but absolutely. and we've partnered both with canada and mexico. we have our 21st century border and beyond the border initiatives in mexico right now. we're working on laredo on preinspection pilots. so we're partnering very closely with mexico. we recognize the importance of trade, and it's the life blood of our economy. and i just think that cbp and ofo have particularly matured in recent years in recognizing that dynamic and the portion of that

trade. >> -- importance of that trade. >> well, you mentioned the laredo site and port, and that's a very important site that i understand that 700 of the fortune 1,000 companies do international business through that port. can you, can you just give an example on the ground on how you protect against terrorists and illegal guns and really bad things coming into our country? and also allowing the trade that's necessary, how do you, how do you make that happen in a way that allows the trade but also has the significant strength to stop terrorists or illegal guns or other activities? >> well, there's a number of ways. we look at, one, we brought technology. we have our rpms there, obviously, for the detection of nuke la, radiological elements. we also have our license plate readers, and on southwest border right now our rfid technology, right now 60% of the documents

being used on the border are rfid compliant. or we're trying to enable both trusted trader programs and our trusted traveler programs. but from a standpoint of the trade, we're trying to, again, focus our resources there. we're working with, again, on this trusted trader program, and with our ct pad. we have a number of programs, we have a number of partners with the industry. laredo's a huge industry for trade for the united states and, again, we've recognized that fact. we've directed our resources. again, i mentioned earlier about the workload staffing model. this is a way that we can direct resources, allocate resources where they're truly needed both from a trade standpoint and also from an enforcement standpoint. >> there was a report that i read a synopsis of, i believe it came out of princeton university, but one of the think tanks -- and i'm going to find that report and get it to the chairman -- and it said that a

side effect of the increased board or security -- border security was that more immigrants were staying in the country. that usually a lot of mexican workers would come in, do seasonal work and then leave and go back to mexico. but now because the border's becoming much tougher to get in and out of, that they're just staying in america. now, i just ask anyone if they'd like to comment on it, have you seen that, is there any substance to the idea that this report put forward? >> i have not seen that. >> you have not seen that. anyone else want to comment on it? my time is -- would you like to comment on gao? >> we haven't seen that study. we haven't reviewed that. >> or the idea, have you seen that's happening? >> we haven't evaluated that issue. >> well, thank you. my time is expired. thank you. >> thank you. i now would like to recognize myself for five minutes. in february, i think it was, i told my staff after several long weeks of working hard if i could

find two days where i could go someplace warm with some sand, and they sent me to arizona to tour the border fence. it was a big eye opener. and earlier, mr. fisher, we discussed the ultralights, and mr. murphy, did you comment on that as well or you didn't? if i'm not mistaken, border patrol received $100 million for the ultralight problem. i mean, that's an awful lot of money. and yet we're really not seeing any significant change. can you tell me what seems to be the problem? i mean, $100 million. you could probably pose quite a few border patrolmen just to sit there and look up in the sky, but nothing seems to be getting done, because i keep hearing a problem from the boot on the ground. >> it is, it has been defined as an emerging threat over the last couple of years and continues to

be so today. one of the things to take into consideration is ultralights can really take off and land pretty much anywhere, so the whole operation area opens up that aperture than other areas we have seen across the southwest with border. we have and will continue to experiment with ground-based radar to be able to tweak the radar to make sure we are able to identify low-flying ultralights and others that may be flying in that particular area. the truth of the matter is we still look to find out and adjust our policies. first and foremost as a law enforcement organization, you know, we enforce laws in the united states, and we do so with a matter of consistency, compassion within the constitution. one of the challenges that we face right now is even if we detect an ultralight and identifying it anding with able to track it -- and being able to track it, the end game, if you will, has not been established in terms of what we can do to that particular ultralight because in