partier milton wolfe. polls close at 8 and 9 p.m. eastern. and tonight we'll bring you live results in that kansas senate race as well as the victory and concession speeches over on c-span. >> on our facebook page, we're asking whether you plan to vote to reelect your member of congress. over 2,000 comments have been posted. join the conversation and share your thoughts at facebook.com/c-span. >> now, a house hearing examining the overcriminallization and overfederallization of the criminal justice system. according to a new report from the congressional research service, there were 403 new criminal statutes created by congress from 2008 to 2013, raising the total to more than 5,000 carrying criminal penalties. [inaudible conversations]

>> task force will be in order to. we have to get this hearing in before the votes start between 11:30 and noon each though it's noticed for 10:30, i think the time for opening statements will burn up the time between now and 10:30, so we can get to the witnesses. i would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the judiciary committee's overcriminallization task force. the tenth and final hearing will focus on the abundance of federal criminal offenses on the books and the role that the judiciary committee's jurisdiction or lack thereof under house rules plays on this issue. ..

>> this committee is comprised of lawmakers with the ability to avoid redundancy with the awareness of the entire body of criminal federal law. with other recommendations we should consider the amendments to clarify not only to criminal law enforcement with legislation as well. again i would like to thank the members of the task force i hope we can come

together to address many of the concerns of over criminalization we have identified and i would like to ask unanimous consent for the record a memorandum dated july 21st, the 2014 from the house parliamentarian entitled the subject updated back from 2008, 2013 dated july 7, 2014 into the record and without objection and so ordered can now i introduce the gentleman from virginia and mr. scott. >> crating the task force to address the explosive growth of federal prison population and the dramatic expansion of u.s. criminal code. for five decades congress

has added a criminal division to as the code in the knee-jerk fashion tough on crime policy instead of legislating thoughtfully but when it comes to criminal law of the those that to be handled by the state are addressed by the federal government was a valid purpose is served and why should there be a federal carjacking statute? in those who are carjacking long before congress made it a federal crime. two weeks ago in testaverde the judge reminded us from a judicial conference in 1995 of five types of criminal offenses name to the federal jurisdiction.

criminal activity with substantial multistate criminal activity with complex commercial enterprises must effectively using federal resources or expertise high-level widespread corruption or raising highly sensitive issues looking at these recommendations the library of congress informed us of 403 provisions are added to the code between 2008 and 2013 with an average of 67 new crimes per year. of those provisions, 39 were not even referred to the a judiciary committee over the last several years we have estimated the for 4500 federal crimes and it is

approximately 5,000 there are 33,000 federal regulations in force with criminal penalties some of the witnesses have testified many regulations lack an adequate criminal intent to protect those who did not intend to commit those sacks from prosecution to legislate for construction for existing statutes and regulations we have heard the concerns to carry criminal sanctions this time for congress to put an end to the practice to reclaim that authority to retain sole discretion to determine which are criminal or which are appropriate with the deprivation of once liberty at stake. dick is still the and for civil penalties but what and criminal penalties are

considered congress should be involved to criminalize more and more activities is the growth of the federal prison population to over 200,000 today making united states a world leader in incarceration seven times the national average it is estimated in a cursory chagrin over 350 the crime reduction in value begins to diminish because at that point you have all the dangerous people locked up lenient you learn from the federal consequences more than 65 million americans are now stigmatized by convictions bombarded by over 45,000 to make reentry and job prospects dim and in spite of the research of

over 350 the population has diminishing returns in the two research center says anything over is counterproductive united states leads over 74,100,000 because unnecessarily locking up people waste money that could be put to better use making the next generation were likely to commit crimes and we locked up will over 500,000 the testimony received during these hearings has consistently told us that is not the answer yet we continue to make war crimes was more mandatory minimums so they had specifically been studied in showing to disrupt patterns to based the taxpayer money to do nothing and also violate

those of common sense it is designed as a compilation of laws and rules and regulations consolidated and classified subject to the matter the criminal code is not a criminal code by that definition. they are spread all over the 51 titles making it virtually impossible for practitioners to make sense out of bet. not only to of all criminal provisions but also clean up and tries it from previous task force hearings to figure how to proceed and whether or not there should be done by congress itself for the appointed commission. it is time to reconsider evidence based research we're wasting billions of dollars of policy it is time

to look for a more reasoned approach to understand that not every sentence requires a long sentence of incarceration. there is much more to do look forward to working with you with that consensus report presented to the full committee with the necessary actions to improve the criminal justice system. >> time has expired without objection on members' statements are placed into the record at this point. it is now my pleasure to introduce the witnesses. first dr. baker is a professor at georgetown law school visiting fellow at the college of oxford -- oxford and also teaches short courses and separation of powers but the supreme court justice antonin scalia. he previously worked as a

federal clerk and has served as a consultant to the department of justice the subcommittee has separation of powers the white house office of planning and from usaid and of fulbright scholar in the of bullet hole -- yet of the philippines. he served as a law clerk as assistant district attorney before joining l.s.u. in 1975 he has been a consultant to the justice department and has served on the task force which issued a report of the federalization of crime and received his degree from university of dallas and michigan law school and from political by university of london. mr. benjamin is a president

national association of criminal defense lawyers a professional bar association founded 1958 the numbers include public defenders and active-duty u.s. military and law professors and judges he serves as special counsel to the justice committee from the transix science previously served the virginia association of criminal defense lawyers. please confine your remarks to five minutes you know, what the lights mean and without objection your full

written statement will be put into the record. dr. baker you go first. >> benders of congress i have testified twice before it i think the task force for allowing me to come back actually i come back on the issue i started out on my own which is counting federal crimes and i have to concur with everything that occurred about the problem with the federal courts and began with the numbers. it does tell a certain story. to talk about where the numbers are and what is the significance of the numbers? and with those federal

regulatory offenses asking the congressional research service they came up with the number of 403 federal crimes not regulatory offenses but just from the u.s. code. it is important to say the accounts for the department of justice use the same methodology that is important for consistency but the significant second point of where we are going is what this says about the average number of crimes and the total number of crimes. as of 2008 there for 4,450 crimes crs has noted the have an additional 403

crimes that brings us at least to almost 5,000 crimes. it means essentially congress witnesses 500 new crimes today. the task force that i served on in the '90s was since the civil war 40 percent of all federal crimes forecast for 1970 through 1996. but you add what is going on since then we're approaching to the percent of all federal crimes enacted since 70 that was the beginning of the war on crime. what does this mean for the future? the rate of crimes is

increasing when i did my count it was 25 but now it is 67 per year. that number may be skewed because in 2008 you past 195 crimes. what is the significance? talk to the u.s. assistant attorney they will tell you the numbers mean nothing vitter use this they don't mean that much to the judge's because there are only so many cases you can bring to the federal court but where they are important is law enforcement. because agencies that us#dáñxfód arrests that don't get the indictment or the crime but

given the of broader array of crimes there is nothing you can get a basis for probable cause for arrest search and seizure. lot of concern the people ought to get focusing on the fact that surveillance is not just a matter privacy is matter of the police fail -- power and in reality with police power we will see it with surveillance as people focus on nsa but think about drones. nothing aid drone cannot search because there is every possibility to come up with the basis of it. some of those agencies will conduct raids you never result in the indictment for

those crimes. it is easy to come up with dave refilled chart tusis somebody's property that is the reality of where the real power is i think this task force has done an amazing job to identify the problem so to take this tremendous power from the executive branch to various agencies that in reality have their own agenda. there is lack of control of what is happening in the field. think you for allowing me to take the opportunity. >> mr. chairman i am the immediate past president of the national association of criminal defense lawyers the preeminent bar association

passing goal san to process justice i commend the house judiciary committee for creating the over criminalization and taskforce and i congratulated for the impressive work over the past year. i am in support of my own taskforce ranking member scott whose work on this issue demonstrates the danger of over criminalization over the traditional the five. the sheer number of federal offenses with 439 new the enacted since 2008 is only with the number of prisoners competed and a number greater than any nation on earth as a visible consequence for over commercialization but one such consequence to be a

law-abiding citizen because criminal law but punishment of fairness andriessen of conduct that is considered a criminal and it is a prohibited conduct that permits people to conform the conductor is a lot at the same time justifies punishment when they cross a clearly drawn line. it is especially important in a legal system that presumes a knowledge of the lot that we should at least ensure the law is millable this is especially true it is not wrong fall in itself and requires no criminal intent it must be accessible. from the federal statutory crimes that can be in force

are scattered throughout this deal does not have the position of all criminal statutes should be organized into a single title. it goes beyond locating criminal statutes with precise definition in specificity of scope it should not be permitted to punish a person without having to prove she acted without local intend to it should be understandable the average citizen cannot determine unlawful activity is on fairness in the space sec form. it has failed to see with

the provisions to assess if targeted conduct already prohibited or better addressed state law. and the cost is not clear but the solution is congress should approach criminalization with caution in with those with specialized expertise given in the qualifications of the judiciary committee to have a special competence in broad perspective of designing criminalize with the consideration the requires passage with those congressional rules to require every bill to add or modify is automatic referral to the judiciary committee the members of this committee are far better suited to take on this role to encourage other members

to seek review of any bills containing new or modified offenses. hopefully such oversight would stem the tide that result in more clear specific understandable criminal offenses in would reduce the number of times it would be delegated they are with the issues invited to address their pervasive and the measures necessary to reform reorganization of committee oversight and further discussion is contained in written testimony. thank you for your bi-partisan commitment to ensure the nation's criminal laws are not a threat to liberty and we will continue to support and assist you however we can. >> the chair will reserve his questioning to the end

of the question is assuming we still have time before the bell rings in the chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from alabama. >> looking at mr. benjamin's testimony to the point where we are ready to act willfully, but we know the problem. it has been reinforced several times have gotten the message and what do we do? and on page nine of your testimony you suggested least four things on here that congressman scott has mentioned one or two of these. one is by changing congressional rules to require every bill to be

subject to automatic referral to the relevant judicial committee. i think that is very important. and inactive statutory law for a criminal intent requirement to re-read into any criminal offense. number three, it says this requirement should be protected from unfair prosecutions should apply retroactively to all existing laws and i know that is a radical idea but i believe in that and i think there should be something to go before a judge particularly some of the environmental crimes with

those cases that people discover on the property and report it but could not afford to dispose of it fast enough and a lot of the cases i talk to the congressman of energy and commerce he said there was a lot of cases and we tried to do something but could not figure it out but it was not judiciary. then next thing and i will ask your reaction the strict liability the association allergist direct liability the body on the employees the full deliberation and

then only if the explicit in the statutes. event the fourth one i did not know this but the supreme court has cautioned against the imposition of strict liability of criminal law. all but minor penalties could be constitutionally impermissible without any requirement. so without that requirement but when you talk about putting someone in jail for one year, that is pretty scary. i would just say and ask both of you to give us five or six specific statutes we

can do to draft some as a model to the gatt. that would be particularly helpful. i appreciate your testimony and dr. baker you have been here very -- before. we have seen people with criminal intents and in the case the government can use the power and force them to do things just with the threat they don't have to get a conviction. and it could be used in a way in countries around the world to put people in jail

and i hate to in certain cases they have done that here. but my time is up spinach the time is expired. the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. in deferred to states for prosecution of all cases to not have a bonafide nexus. >> even today the overwhelming number of cases are prosecuting at the state level sometimes there are complex between law enforcement for where the

jurisdiction is with high profile cases in other times it is cooperation based on money. when i was prosecuting in new orleans we have bonkers sentences than federal if you could believe that. all of the federal agents would steer into our courts sometimes they would steer the case if there was a provision of search and seizure. they're very practical you have to be specific plays by place would overwhelm the state is that what you are talking about? >> no. we like to defer to the states as a general manner in one of the previous witnesses said in ascertaining going through what you want to consider

penalties was not on the list of things to consider. do you agree with that? >> you can pick and choose your jurisdiction. >> then we did it in richmond that his have worked simic i wrote an article against that. >> without pointing out because the project exile but other cities in virginia that did not the crime rate went down more. you have mens rea you have criminal intent how else to

people though they are committing a crime? >> you make sell-offs is accessible. but they have to hire a lawyer to answer that question in then to have that statutes within the 51 titles of the code which is impossible task that is why we head to our beds a few lawyers will say you can do that's because it permit such uncertainty is ambiguous written it is impossible to know if the oppose conduct is lawful or unlawful. >> is that why it is so important. >> exactly why. >> say a word about the overlapping crimes of states in federal for the trial penalty?

>> certainly. the trial penalty is the penalty for going to trial that, let me back up. it is a unique in cherished american value consistent with freedom and liberty that government accuses of a crime to take away our freedom we have the right to stand up to the government to not only deny it but make them say prove it. but we have completely lost the right if we go to trial to make the government prove that allocation is a challenge that constitutionality or because we are innocent they can no longer do that if we lose a bid to challenge the government then we face staggering mandatory minimum sentences that can be

stacked by the prosecution to beat us into a guilty plea that is not how the system was designed. >> are there problems consolidating all around with the subject matter. >> first of all, back in the '80s the first criminal code the real problem was to organize to pay attention to the provisions in one since it was the code but in another sense the federal government should not have a code because it is a comprehensive statement of criminal law and if you

believe that congress only has limited powers to justify with enumerated powers the idea of a comprehensive criminal code is very difficult to without expanding federal power. concern about a general code like that even with the attempt to limit federal power was a defacto expanding powers to make your time is expired. now the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. this is the tenth hearing and both of you have been here before. so this is a good place and a good point to begin with is how do see the cumulative effect the impressions and

understanding out of these 10 hearings this year and last year? dr. baker start us off. >> i compare back when i was a law clerk the biggest thing that strikes me is the balance of power and how that has shifted so dramatically toward federal law enforcement to the point that not everyone and a certain arrogance that pervades the prosecutors and it goes with the territory if you give anybody to much power they will use it and i don't mean for what they perceive they believe what they're doing is the right saying. but then when they resigned to become criminal defense attorneys have a different perspective and realize

maybe we were a little too aggressive. i have that on balance and they have said that now that they're on the defense side. there are three perspectives the prosecutor and the defense and the judge do injury. there has to be a balance between the two sides into this point it is in favor of federal prosecution. >> but the state crimes are far more numerous than federal. there is a difference so they are simply dealing with the violent crimes that they had very few prosecutors in major cities have time to go looking for things. they cannot find what has already been done you have

the defendant and then what can we neil des moines? that is not now the federal prosecutor's work. >> could you rain on this discussion? >> i agree absolutely with dr. baker and assets of the current criminal justice system the biggest dramatic change from when i began to defend criminal cases is the over balance of power. federal criminal defense is all about negotiating risk. that is solid is. gilts is presumed by the prosecution. and those to compel the a guilty plea that isn't even

a question. to do whatever you have to do for that treatment that you seek? >> so with the full judiciary committee with those hearings that we have had and what can we take? with the chairman and ranking member where to rigo from your? it is part of the mens rea problem but to fault mens

rea with criminal statute by rule of construction and that applies the mens rea at least two of material elements. >> with mens rea? >> no. the uniform mens rea standards clearly defined across the board. >> i would agree i have been involved a little bit to draft this and it is not easy and how differently they are but those things that i endorse clearer definitions of what is a crime or of felony and the way to do with strict liability is to say and not a criminal offense.

is in the penal code but i imagine not many have adopted it to have that provision from non criminal offenses with the strict liability is limited to those of you think they need to be prosecuted for lying but the stigma is not on their civic said gentleman from georgia? >> as i listen to the testimony to do all the door reading and was impressed with the fact is that paper you state statistics stating in 1983 it was estimated 3,000 criminal offenses in the code and in 1998 cited the

doj figures. >> those were two different studies the other one involved the same person that there were different methodologies used. >> but it indicates there was no gross. >> there was gross. >> but it may not have been 300. >> kim was more than that. >> okay. that is a modest assessment 300 as of 98 that was 300 more than 83 and in between 98 and 2008 to so that tenure period arises at 4450. >> that 1998 figure which i explained is not reliable it

does not follow that methodology. that which i used by e-mail told by the person to use the save methodology that doj did. but what happened in did not break statutes down into the various crimes but it simply counted the statutes. >> so between 2018 and 2013. >> that is the crs report was 195 crimes. according to the reports close to 5,000 offenses and

it looks like the 1983 through 2008 there was an explosion in the number of human beings in this country. and then at this same time we have the conservative movement in the country that has called for less government and less taxes so to put on top of that to have more jail space and prisons with growth in the private prison industry. and in 198,330,002,013 close of 5,000 and in 1984 it

should be noted when the corrections corporation of america with a for-profit corporation that is the year that was founded and since that time they have experienced exponential growth there is another big one that i forget the name. they were selling stock on wall street. what connection to you see between the growth of the private prison industry and the amount of contributions

those companies make to the legislators on the federal level? and the growth of the prison industry? and the growth of statutes to put people in prison? >> i can draw of a distinction between growth is certain things but i represented a sheriff in louisiana who built the largest public prison system and the whole thing was funded by federal dollars. he was in the business and that was higher than the state rate there was a definite connection. on the conservative side of their understanding this is you have some conservatives flipping to call even the

state criminal penalties because they realize the growth is unsustainable the gentleman has expired. >> could i make one last david? i can imagine we would not see a rise in the cost from the private prison industry. >> the gentleman from new york, mr. jefferies. >> thank you for your presence today in the contribution the effort of the panel you mentioned something that was very troubling you agreed with the notion that the national defense is negotiation efforts to resolution.

the notions that have served to undergird the criminal justice system if there is a presumption of innocence it seems it cannot be the case has once everything is indicted that the only real option available should be presumed innocent to negotiate the most favorable resolution that will likely result of a sanction or jail time. how do we unpacked this dynamic in a way that allows the task force the house or the congress to make a meaningful impact? i would like to get the observations of both of you

there ought to be some way to rein in the inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial decision making. you referenced deter americans that exist perhaps with some prosecutors saw it may not agree with those decisions that they make but has it currently exists right now has the capacity to oversee prosecutorial behavior and what consequence is are there when inappropriate policies are made? >> the power of oversight to break in the federal prosecutors is with either the doj or the u.s. attorney for a given district. the reality however is we are of the will those individuals want to

interfere with a career prosecutors to have been doing since all their lives. the answer is to take a look at the tools used to produce this result in the biggest problem is the existence and expansion of mandatory minimum sentences that gives beef unfathomable power to federal prosecutors they can in their decisions from in 10 or 20 or 30 or lifetime mandatory sentences that takes the judge completely out of it if somebody is convicted we say i am understand you are innocent and you have a case but if you lose you will get a life sentence. >> i appreciate that observation. please respond with the observation as the

prosecutors have immunity. >> sometimes they get involved in the investigation. >> so law enforcement has qualified immunity is that something we should explore? >> i guess as a former prosecutor i like to absolute immunity but i have not given it enough thought but i think there is a reason for immunity whether it should be qualified but the assumption is the prosecutor is under the control in the way that law enforcement is not. >> that is the assumption that the testimony shows that is no longer the case that the article three federal judges have lost control.

>> but the political reality is i don't care what party you talk about. depending on the particular u.s. attorney how he or she got appointed or they have the senator protecting them is what it comes down to. >> one last observation to rectify the damage that has been done and moving forward how can we return to the cycle of the end of this criminal cycles and is often the case elected officials react to the public that is the constitutional charge to the house of representatives but in that criminal case relating to a heinous crime that results in doing things that retrospect is in our

best interest and i would encourage the dynamic has been moved forward. >> the time has expired'' i will recognize myself for five minutes to wrap up and this will be more of commons over the last year and what we have been able to discover. thank you to the witness is for appearing. it is only scratching the surface of what needs to be done because literacy the congress and a lot of the agencies have been putting more and more players and we are starting to peel off the ones on the outside just amassed more questions.

it in order to stop this from getting worse we have to vigorously pursue a change of house rules and some of these lapses of those that don't know very much about criminal law that hasn't been very vigorous to assert its jurisdiction and it has to stop. because we did not claim it with the exchanges of letters until further legislation is this is very we also need a default mens rea statutes when there is not a specific criminal intent instead there will be one and is there is and it

would not for you to apply as one of the elements for the indictment or conviction. so of the criminal penalties some of them are statutory some of the ardennes administratively. i would like to see then judiciary committee draft to be enacted into law the sunset provision of all administrative criminal penalties. it should be a fairly long sunset and the committee can ask each agency to justify which of those they wish to have continued on the statute if they cannot

justify that in order to get the re-enactment from congress and the administrative penalties would be an issue and would not have to worry about than any more. so with those provisions is to start scrubbing the bill i have introduced in this congress to the proceeding congress is designed to reorganize the covered and to at least put some sense so people kentuckians see what our criminal without going to a lawyer who cannot defend an answer because the matter how hard they try they cannot find what statutes are involved. it in the few days we have left none of this will be accomplished however i would

hope of would be prepared to start the next congress in a bipartisan manner to look at that task force rory each of those areas to figure out what to do to get enacted into law and the american public while they will not see the immediate change of how they approach criminal issues, and definitely long term with many of the results so i want to think the witnesses and the members of this task force for putting in a lot of time to do the good work to have the first two layers that we have to go. so the subcommittee hearing

is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] . .

from the rand corporation and latina international. >> the front of your packets contained by griffey and treatment as my disclosures for today's witnesses. before we get started since this is a joint hearing involving two subcommittees i want to explain how we operate procedurally. so all members understand how the question-and-answer period will be answered. we will recognize those members present and those coming in after the gavel will be recognized in the order of arrival.

i recognize myself now for five minutes for an opening statement. 12 years ago the common security act established the director for science technology within the department of homeland security. the directorate manages and carries out science and technology research for federal homeland security needs. the directorate is responsible for coordinating this research with other federal research entities. the committee on science-based technology shares oversight with the homeland security committee. since the spring the subcommittee has been planning joint hearings with their counterparts in the homeland security committee to hear from the department of homeland security s&t director so this has been a long planned hearing. today is the day that it would work out for us to do this and unfortunately the department of homeland security could not work them into their schedule but there'll be another hearing in september that will complete this hearing.

unfortunately we could not make the calendars come together like i said and i'm looking forward to the department of homeland security testifying in september. the s&t directorate is responsible for developing new technologies from basic research for the development for use including technologies that can help secure our borders. from unmanned aerial vehicles to tunnel detection from anti-counterfeit standards to buy metrics they are existing and promising new technologies that can act as compliance for border patrol agents in the coast guard to augment their day-to-day work on security related issues. we will hear from a government accountability office which has issued a series of reports about dhs technology research and development into private-sector experts each of them can contribute on a different aspect of border security technology. i look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.

i now recognize the ranking member john from illinois mr. lipinski for an opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman chairman. i think they're witnesses for providing valuable testimony on this issue. today we will hear how the department of research and it only can improve technology to secure more -- american borders. today it's more pressing than ever. as has been said many times those wishing americans harm only need to get it right once. to keep america safe and need to get it right every time. this daunting task falls largely on the shoulders of dhs. as a member of both a science-based technology committee and the transportation and infrastructure committee i'm especially concerned with border security and basic

transportation. last week i met with u.s. customs and border protection on their pursuit about technology such as standards at o'hare airport in chicago as well as cbp's global entry program. science and technology plays a critical role in addressing homeland security challenge however the department has been plagued with problems as management research and development. the agency is young having been only created 11 years ago. i do not envy the task of putting together several public program functions of the agency and i'm concerned that several of their problems remaining today. sda -- gm to stay the department cannot tell us how much they invest. there's a lack of effective to medication between operational components and the science and technology directorate. furthermore they're still still most ggg plan to guide the department's research and development experts.

it's important to understand the steps the agency goes through an identifying technological problems whether border security or another mission need. when agents identify technological challenge how is this me pass along to the researchers developing the technology. the condition between operational component for dhs and researchers into science and technology directorate has to be improved. once the technology is developed it must be thoroughly tested and evaluated to see that not only functions as intended but the environment which was great. understanding how cbp agents or customers in the field would use the technology. what additional improvements should be made in the key steps to deploying the technology. without understanding the human elements in the process i'm concerned we invest significant federal resources potentially on unusable technology. i look forward to hearing from dr. -- about the evaluation and

deployment of these technologies at dhs. securing our borders is difficult and complex problem. people and materials can enter by air land and sea. this requires reporters agree at first not only effectively communicate internally but also coordinate with other federal agencies as well as state and local governments. i hope our discussion today provides a committee with recommendations to reform our legislative responsibilities for r&d and the department of homeland security and i look forward to hearing about how public and private sector innovation can help protect our border. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you mr. lipinski and the chair recognizes dr. broun for his opening statement. >> thank you dr. bucshon and i welcome you all here today as witnesses and i'm looking forward to hearing from you all about this very important issue.

earlier this month i traveled to the southern border of our country with the homeland security committee. we held a field hearing in mcallen texas on july 3 where we discussed the recent surge of unaccompanied minors who were seized crossing the border. i was astounded to learn that the number of children illegally entering the united states from central america has grown from approximately 5000 of them a year and estimated 57,000 so far this year and they are projecting up to 90,000 this fiscal year. an influx of this expense raises questions about the security of our southern border. currently border patrol agents are inundated with processing unaccompanied minors and not fulfilling their primary mission to safeguard the border against terrorists here in the country under the radar as well as drugs and other things entering.

it's a national security issue as far as i'm concerned. in order to protect the nearly 2000 miles southwest border patrol agents would benefit from advances in modern technologies such as monitors sensors radars cameras thermal imaging devices and drones however there are many flaws in the various dhs components. problems and management coordination and acquisition of items needed to help secure our american borders. in 2012 gao reported that quote the department of homeland security does not know the total amount its components invest in research and development and does not have policies and guidance for defining r&d and overseeing r&d resources across the department and quote. further the 2013 gao report

cites examples where projects were delayed and canceled due to an inability to obtain data from dhs. this is intolerable. dhs science and technology directorate states on its own web site that it is quote the primary research and development arm of the department of homeland security and manages science and technology research from development through transition. first responders to protect the homeland unquote. how can this primary research and development arm not have any idea of this whole amount of taxpayer money being invested on technology to detect, prevent and mitigate threats to our nation? this is not the prescription to protect our homeland. as the chairman of this committee's oversight subcommittee i value transparency and accountability. the s&t directory needs to lay

out a clear comprehensive plan to manage research and development activities and coordinate with other entities to ensure the department of effective state-of-the-art technology in a timely fashion. absent a strategic technology roadmap our citizens will remain vulnerable to threats stemming from our unsecured border. thank you dr. bucshon and thank you mr. chairman for holding this very important hearing and i yield back the balance

what is essential is that we strengthen our borders and enforce our laws. that is essential to any nation sovereignty to control its own borders. i want to say i agree with mr. broun my friend mr. broun that border security must be focused on keeping terrorists

weapons of mass destruction as well as illegal firearms and dangerous drugs from entering the united states. again a need for reform. the purpose of this hearing i look forward to hearing the witnesses testimony on the research and development implementation of new technologies on america's border and potential new technologies that might be more effective. it's unfortunate committee was unable to obtain witnesses from the department of homeland security science and technology director or host a joint hearing with the homeland security committee is there's a lot of overlap in this area and that wouldn't be helpful. that said i am very grateful to the cheers for calling this hearing and it's extremely important and it's important my district which does have the border with canada. i know dr. bauer would probably share that interest since his family is from wake county which is in my district and does have that water border with canada.

being able to actively monitor the integrity of the u.s. borders is essential to maintaining border and national security which is essential to our sovereignty. i look forward for witnesses helping us better understand the science behind these issues and evaluate to how technology can augment and support the human resources that are ultimately responsible for maintaining our border security. i yield back. >> thank you. i now recognize the chairman of the full committee that gentleman from texas. >> thank you mr. chairman. we are all aware of the impact of illegal immigrant children streaming across our southern border. this is both a national security and a humanitarian crisis that we cannot allow to continue. a country that has lost control of its borders has lost control of its future. the president has ignored and failed to enforce and unilaterally change current immigration laws. as a result millions of young people have risked their lives to make the dangerous trip to

come here illegally. further the has yet to secure our nation's borders. as border agents are forced to turn increased attention to the surge of minors concentrated in areas along the border it leaves much of the rest of the border unprotected. technology is a key component to securing our 2000-mile southern border. customs and border protection and national guard troops cannot be everywhere. they can detect and track coyotes who smuggle children as well as illegal drugs and firearms across the border. sensors will help agents know where coyotes are so they can intercept and stop them and ground penetrating radar can find tunnels that crisscross our borders. we need to get to this technology in the hands of our immigration officers. unfortunately the department of homeland security has a poor track record when it comes to developing field accessories and

tactical communications infrastructure along this border. the government accountable the office gao finds the department of homeland security's research and development efforts to be quote fragmented and overlapping end quote. the department's science and technology directorate will spend $1.2 million on numerous projects on border security but many are not. the gao found hundreds of millions of dollars being spent each year on duplicate if r&d projects and other assets within the department. frankly no one knows who is in charge of research and development or what the goal list. the gao reports that directorate lost touch with end-users about what technologies and project should be a priority. today's witnesses will testify for the needs of the department, and security to develop a plan to secure america's borders and help us to carry out that plan. research and technology are key components to securing america's

borders. in september we will hear from the department of homeland security undersecretary for science and technology they position created by this committee in a joint hearing with the homeland security committee. we are working with them on draft legislation to set priorities for science and technology directorate on how to secure america's border. i look forward to working with my colleagues to turn the school into a reality. while there may be mixed feelings about the current situation on our southern border we should all be able to agree that we can and we must secure america's borders with the help of technology. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank you chairman. if there are members who wish to submit additional statements are statements will be added to the record at this point. this point i would like to do so witnesses. their first witness dr. jack riley riley's vice president of brand's security research division and research institute. dr. riley received his bachelors

from the university of michigan and his masters from georgetown and ph.d. from the rand school. a second witnesses mr. david mauer. he is the director of u.s. government accountability office office's homeland security justice team. mr. mauer earned his bachelor's from michigan state and has two masters degree from the university of michigan and the national defense university. our third witnesses dr. joseph ironman. dr. ironman is codirector of the institute for homeland security solutions a senior research methodologist and the director of rti international center for security safety and defense. dr. armand received his bachelors from muskegon university and has two masters degrees from florida state university in miami university and his ph.d. from florida state university. welcome to all of our witnesses.

as her witnesses should no spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each after which members of the committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. is the practice of the subcommittee on oversight to receive testimony and her of. does anyone have a problem with that? if not then please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear, solemnly swear to affirm, to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect that all the witnesses participating in taking the oath. this point i recognize dr. riley for five minutes to present his testimony. >> manning thank you chairman bucshon and make a members blueprint and maffei to testify about technology needs for air land and sea border security. almost exactly eight years ago i

testified before to homeland security subcommittees on this same topic and at that time i said and i quote we are woefully under invested in developing evaluating and refining a comprehensive and integrated border security strategy. we have invested in numerous border security programs and initiatives but the impacts on the costs and the cost effectiveness are virtually all of these initiatives are poorly understood end quote. unfortunately nearly a decade later the same concerns largely apply. so let me turn to three points i will make in his testimony. first first, we need to invest in measurement and data so that we have an empirical basis for which to have policy debates. second, we need to more systematically understand the cost effectiveness of programs and policies and third and finally we need to systematically track and document how border control

efforts affect the larger economy and society. let me start my first by explaining why the data gaps are so worrisome. effective border security begins with understanding why and how people and contraband across the border. different motivations may require different policies. migration for example motivated by the desire for economic betterment may be best controlled by a combination of border deterrence and labor market enforcement. in contrast smuggling of contraband may be best addressed by deterrence and technological detection. in my written testimony i detailed some of the ways in which we can capture this kind of data however as far as i can tell none of these estimation methods have been formally adopted nor do they receive continued support for development and refinement. they should however so that they can become the foundation for border security scorecard. i will turn out to my second ,

why it's important to know about cost-effectiveness. imagine secretary johnson is presented with the opportunity to add 10,000 border patrol agents. using the kind of data i just mentioned he could not only assess the effectiveness of additional agents but give guidance on where and how to deploy them. he could also give guidance on what technologies might be good substitutes for work complements to the additional personnel. equally importantly we could say something about how migrants and smugglers would adapt to the presence of additional personnel. indeed with better data we might be able to predict how behavior might adapt and correspondingly modifier policies. at a minimum we would like to detect the changes in behavior earlier which in turn would help with improving future policymaking. third a word about the broader economic and social implications of the border. policies designed to improve control over the border can

promulgate widely throughout the economy and society. to give one example after nine 9/11 we changed visa policies to make it more difficult for terrorists to travel in the united states however by making it more difficult weekend for not only terrorists but also an unknown number of legitimate travelers, foreign tourists, foreign students qualified foreign workers whose presence provide great benefits to our economy and the vibrancy of our culture. in short border enforcement directly and indirectly touches on every aspect of the economy and our livelihoods. we should be systematically tracking these events so we understand the full cost and the full benefits of border security programs. at the beginning of this oral statement i mentioned i have three points however i want to add a fourth. border security is one of the greatest analytic challenges to the post-9/11 generation. it's a topic that can and should

attract the best and brightest minds but it remains frustratingly difficult to work on the topic both because of the departmental restrictions on access to the data that are collected and also because of departmental restrictions on publishing and academic engagement. good science demands public scrutiny and rigorous academic engagement. i urge this committee and the subcommittees to exercise its oversight role and help make this topic better grounded in science and more attractive to the best analysts and researchers. thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. i now recognize mr. maurer for five minutes for his testimony. >> good morning chairman bucshon chairman broun chairman smith ranking member lipinski franqui member maffei members and staff. i'm pleased to to be this going to talk about the results of her recent work looking at research and development at the department of homeland security and how those efforts are being used to enhance border security.

r&d matters at dhs for a couple of reasons. first the taxpayers provide dhs over $1 billion a year to support research and development. for that reason alone to to the pardon me to the parties to ensure its r&d activities work as planned. r&d can also help dhs better execute its various missions. for example improve technology to detect people or nuclear material helps dhs secure the border and ultimately our homeland. dhs has made important strides in recent years towards taking a more strategic approach. for example the science and technology directorate has a strategic plan if we refuse the portfolio project and has developed new ways to coordinate with other dhs components. the last point is especially important since s&t strives to conduct its r&d work side-by-side for eventual end-users. with that said dhs clearly has a lot of work ahead to bring

coherence to its research and development efforts. our work over the past two years identifies three key areas were dhs needs to improve. we found dhs needed to define r&d, do a better job tracking r&d and improve how it coordinates r&d. i will briefly expand on these three points. in september 2012 we reported that dhs lacked the common definition of research and development and we found a lot of activity across the department that could be considered r&d and by law s&t is responsible for coordinating and overseeing all of it. they can't do that if the various dhs components are working for the same definition and agree on what should be coordinated. our work also found several problems in dhs efforts to track r&d. as it turned out to dhs struggled to answer basic questions such as how much are you spending, will which components are doing r&d, what projects are currently underway

into complete projects meet the needs of customers. we found dhs did not know how much they invest in r&d and that make's it really difficult to oversee activities across the entire department. his inability to track r&d places dhs at risk of overlapping duplicative efforts. we identified 35 instances were contacted r&d activity one component overlap with the other. also ability to coordinate r&d. there are several coronation mechanisms within dhs but they need to work better. for example the report we issued last year on border maritime found it the good news for detection office and the coast guard regularly reached out to end-users of their completed r&d projects. however s&t left any formal approach to follow-up with a follow-up with and users of its deliverables. s&p's customers were also much

more likely to report that s&t deliverables did not meet end-user needs and in some instances we were unable to locate an end-user for an s&t project. for example s&t spent more than $1 million on a project to enhance cbp's ability to track their time vessels without having a specific customer. our recent work found problems in dhs's coronation with her work with the national labs. what is dhs doing to better find coordinate and track r&d? on the plus side it has in common definition for r&d and that's an important first step however what dhs has taken some actions they are still not sufficient to address our recommendations to improve how we track and coordinate our data and that's important because clearly defined closely tracked and well coordinated r&d activities will help translate state-of-the-art science into usable tools that can help enhance the security of our borders. we will keep the committee

informed on the department's ongoing efforts to address our recommendations. mr. chairman thank you. that concludes my opening remarks and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much grade-a now recognize mr. ireland for five minutes for his testimony. >> good morning chairman bucshon chairman broun chairman smith ranking member lipinski and ranking member maffei. thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding technology needs to secure america's borders. i prepared a written testimony and requested be entered into the record. i've been working closely with dhs science and technology directorate on the series of program and technology evaluations for the past six years in my role as director of the institute for homeland security solutions at rti international. our work with dhs is part of a larger rtr project to better understand the human factors that contribute to the transition of new technologies into the public sector and

private market. i am a social scientist by training into my role with ihs i've had the opportunity to play social science research methods to dh probe programs and application of new technologies. ..

several d.h. as technologies including a dhs assessment of the rapid dna pilot test, part of a study to develop technology for field dna tests to support applications by refugees for entrance into the u.s. eighty-four funded examination of nontechnical barriers encountered by program managers designed to identify trends and patterns that can guide the program managers in the transition of future technologies. finally, an assessment of nontechnical factors that will contribute to the safe and successful transition of unmanned aircraft into their routine aspects of our economic and social lives. some of the key findings of these studies that are relevant to the transition of dhs technology to border security are, first, strong and potentially beneficial technologies that can be derailed by non technical problems stemming from a failure to understand the needs and abilities of the workforce, the

complexities of public perception in the willingness of the public to accept certain types of technology into their daily life. second, the social science evaluation model is rarely applied to new technologies by dhs. when aid is committees use in a limited, nonstandard manner. this may delay the transition of technologies and limit our ability to assess the impact and effectiveness of those technologies on the agency mission. finally, complex technologies can develop at a slower rate than the operational realities of the components. this often results in technologies that are developed without a clear operation of partner fragmentation because needs have changed and priorities have shifted. my written testimony includes more detail on these and other technology assessments. we continue to examine these challenges and make recommendations for changes that will expedite the transition process to bring new technologies to bear on our

security needs in a more efficient and timely manner. thank you for your interest, and thank you for any questions you may have. >> thank you. i want to thank the witnesses were there testimony. as part of want to remind members that the committee rose limit questioning to five minutes. the chair will open a round of questions. recognize myself for five minutes. dr. riley, the feasibility of adopting the existing surveillance system such as those used on the southern border. >> additional information. well, for example, you know, part of defense has surveillance equipment that we are currently using. equipment that has potential that we may not need to do duplicative scientific and

technical research arm that would make them applicable for the dual use purpose of being used on the southern border. a similar concept. i would be in favor of a structured test to understand how their work in the u.s. border in which ways they can be effective, but at this point i am not convinced that we need significant investment in new technologies more than we need careful assessment of what we already have in place and how well the pieces work together. >> understood. from your past work what are the most important lessons learned that he would share with the new leaders? >> well, i think first and foremost would highlight the two remaining outstanding areas have to show more progress which is mainly to a better job tracking and a better job coordinating the r&d efforts, not just in the science and technology directorate but the entire department.

the statutory responsibility and, frankly, they have struggled with having close coordination with some of the other operational components. i encourage them to take action on that front. insurer that they are more tightly intent with the needs of the end users of the technologies they are developing. making strides toward that. a lot of time and effort trying to get more tightly bound and involved in acquisition. i think that is a good step. >> i would agree with that that it may very well be important to coordinate with a potential end user, although some time the end users don't really know what they might need to tell inventors are people invent something that might be useful. i think that was kind of product research. it felt like people did not what

they would use until you develop it. there are two arguments, but i do think coordination is important. through its authorizing statute they are responsible for developing a national policy and strategic plan for civilian efforts to identify and develop countermeasures for emerging terrorist threats. also task of coordinating the development and management of science and technology agenda. to the best of my knowledge al qaeda s has not yet accomplished either of these impossibilities. dr. riley and mr. mallick, but there he testified about lack of coordination. as we look toward real authorizing, should the strategic planning and coordination responsibilities remain within the ags? if so, how can we prompt movement on these important tasks? if not where might the better the situation and why?

>> i think it is important. the current tessitura framework for the department to do what the law requires that to do which is establish a strategy for within the department to work with our partners across government. the broader policy issue whether they should continue to have that responsibility, reauthorization language. a policy consideration. one thing that is important to keep in mind, the amount of money spent on r&d is about one sixth of the total spent across the entire government is furious as somebody somewhere is going to have to be in talks to bring coherence and coordination and oversight. >> dr. riley. >> i will add that one of the things that may or may not help is better use of undersecretary of policy in the apartment of homeland security. right now that is assistant secretary positioned to everyone of the ways it may be dropped

within the generation of technology and implementation and effective use, it is not having a counterpart. >> he listed a variety of barriers could you elaborate on what they can do to further the transfer of technology to users? do you have any idea about developing the strategy to address these challenges? >> thank you for your question. i would say there are two issues that have affected the ability to increase the involvement of social science research and the

age as technology transition. one is the absence of a standardized process for inserting social science research that involves the end users and the customers and the dhs staff and the study design, project implementation and assessment of results. that is primarily due to a lack of coordination around the social sciences. at one. there was a division and we focus on human factors. that division has been removed and merging with another division, and staff have been eliminated. >> any particular reason that was removed? >> i don't know the reason behind that. that is beyond my knowledge retained but the second barrier, i think, to the adoption is the number of staff and focused on social science research methods. i think the first issue could be addressed for better coordination and planning in

standardized process. the second one is more of a staff and budget issues. >> thank you. >> dr. riley, you mentioned in your testimony that after many years we are lacking analytic ability to measure the effectiveness of border security tools and policy. your solution is further invested in developing a strategy and investments in technology infrastructure. considering there are various types of illegal border activity with no one-size-fits-all solution what type of technology should we invest in to get the necessary data? >> in terms of technology development and investment, one of the things i would be looking for is a tighter and better design requirements generation process so that we understand where the front line providers a border security feel the need for new technologies and

perceive the need for additional technology developed. there has been progress made in that area, but generally, for example, the connection to and technology transfer and the requirements development and vhs is not as mature. >> what is the reason? that has not been developed. >> i think growing pains. there are significant structural differences but in the department of defense and the department of homeland security. incorporate all of the different elements that went in and get them functioning smoothly, probably a limiting factor according to multiple geode -- gao reports, a strategic plan has been talked about these --

dhs has been quite vague. since your office has been monitoring the progress do you have an idea as to what has been getting in the way of developing a plan? >> that is a really good question a report that was issued two years ago. dhs would be a better place. our sense is that they have certainly made progress on defining. that is the first up rig would like to see them develop a strategy. all the partner would like and see a way get developed. have any more effective way of implementing the various r&d projects across department. i hope that the relatively new undersecretary would take this on as one of his top lawyer agrees.

>> i yield back. >> i now recognize chairman brown for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow-up on that question. eight technology road map. what is the biggest impediment to developing the organizing comprehensive national border security strategy? >> i would say that probably the biggest towns they face is the sheer complexity of the task that they are trying to accomplish. it involves predominantly si dp but will and all science and technology and other parts of the department as well. a multifaceted problem which touches on many different aspects. it is a difficult challenge have been -- some are critical of the apartment and different aspects of border security and their ability to measure the impact

for technology investment over the past many years. they can make progress. so. >> if you can give us part of the what we call qf r., questions or records recommendations of how to get over this impediment, do you have any comment? >> just starting a note to myself, the border is obviously a complex issue with different pieces of bureaucracy within the department of homeland security. nobody really owns the border. we need to find a late to get a greater single point of accountability, the breadth of border issues, whether that is something that is, as i said in a previous comment integrated, whether it is the appointment of a borders are as we have done on other policy issues in other

contexts. i am not quite sure, but there is no single point of accountability on the border. >> let me read to you a few sentences from there own testimony. you said, officials told us at the time that our process did not exist to prevent of clap of unnecessary duplication. also found in september 2012 that there ongoing projects including r&d activities contract to the national laboratories. as part of our review ratify 11 components to reimburse the national laboratories for r&d for fiscal years 2010-2012. but the office of national laboratories could not provide us with any information on his activities and told us it did

not try to. as of july 2014 dhs has not developed new policy guidance. these issues go back for a couple of years. i understand that in some areas d.h. as appears to be taking initial steps to meet g.a.o. multiple recommendations such as connecting portfolio reviews across the apartment in collecting feedback from customers. this department is no longer in its infancy. it has been around for over a decade now. when i read that dhs has not yet determined the most effective path to guide r&d across the apartment or that they have not developed new policy guidance, i have to ask, should some or all of dhs are in the components be placed fangio high-risk list? you, as you know, is reserved for agencies and bra areas will marvel to fraud, waste, abuse,

and mismanagement. or are they in most need a transformation? so should they be on the high-risk list? >> to some extent they already are committee have an existing high-risk area. >> specifically to r&d. we do not have is pacific shout out, but the problem that they face in terms of coordination and tracking are rooted in it would fundamentally is an issue for the department to stitches of together in a comprehensive way. a high risk area which has been critical of the efforts to develop a common approach to acquisitions and financial management, information technology, human capital. a lot of these things are the building blocks of organizations and to some extent are some of the root causes for white the is no visibility over r&d spending, the financial. >> my time is about i anchorage

you pick pish. >> we will see where we are and go from there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i apologize. you can pick that up after the hearing. we really appreciate the work of all the witnesses. as been an informal hearing. one thing i want to ask you, d.h. as has had rather large r&d failures. one example is that they canceled a large and comprehensive investment after investing nearly a billion dollars. are they able to salvage any of

that technology? >> you are absolutely right. the failed project. we have a slightly different approach to developing new technology for the border. the arizona technology plan, the current approach is to rely more ostensibly on commercial, off the shelf. we still have concerns about how that particular program is being implemented. we have issued reports and have testified previously that we do not believe the amount of testing that will be done for the arizona technology plant is efficient. that was one of the root causes. our hope is that people will take this a up. >> how robust is this technology you know, i think -- i don't want to be cynical, but you get the impression, they could come up and set up motion sensors,

cameras, laser sensors. and for a much cheaper cost to a lot of the same thing. tell me i am wrong. >> technologies are good and immature. one of the areas where dat as in many government agencies struggle is with the detailed. where do you have the people, backup, and integrate with the technology to make the most and best effective use of it. dhs is making progress. acquisition processes are maturing, but they are certainly not perfect at this point. >> thank you. you have anything at? >> absolutely. i completely agree with the comments. we worked on an evaluation of technology for biometric identification. the technology was quite ready. developed a shelf. it was effective. the problem was technology could not be integrated. that is where it broke down.

if it was integrated into the system that would result in large delays at the airport. was unclear who would be responsible for implementation, and there were consultations with the airline which could not be addressed by the technologies >> i am going to yield my final two minutes. >> thank you. a quick question in follow-up. you mentioned that only a sixth of the r and d funding is actually done with the hs. where is the other five agencies and how should we be thinking about the strategic goals, how can they be better coordinated. i would like your advice. >> absolutely. d.h. as is one sixth of the total pie. we do not know how it breaks down specifically. a few others, lot of it is being

done with the department of health and human services. one thing that would hope is the development of the statutory required government-wide approached, security. that is something that has been on the books for a number of years. >> thank you. anybody else? >> in conversations and discussions about the border it is common to lapse into thinking only about the southern land border, and we need to be more careful thinking holistic choose >> coming from connecticut. it is an issue. we have nuclear plants all up and down the east coast. we cannot just be thinking. >> i now yield to the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to enter into the record to items.

>> so ordered. we will try to squeeze into more questions. that may address my first question to you. in 2011 the administration canceled the secure border initiative to you think the result of those made it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the border? >> difficult to say, but both of those were important initiatives . how would you grade the department of homeland security and the use of technology today?

>> incomplete. >> i agree. >> what type of technology are they using? >> a large range of technology from unmanned aerial staff. >> just a lot more. >> it is simply too complicated an issue to agree out in the few minutes before a committee like this, i think. >> take the incomplete for the time being. want to ask a question about the gao. in 2011 he took a look it 8703 miles of border. 15 percent was under control the border patrol. what did you mean by under control? >> in that report we were using a measure for operational

control at the border. see vp no longer uses the particular measure in their effort to assess border security >> my question was what to the definition mean when you undertook a study of control the border? >> that was part of the problem and the reason why we moved away from the definition. it was open to wide interpretation. >> it was embarrassing that only have 2 percent of the border was under full control. again, full control i was told in a previous hearing that there was a high likelihood that illegal entrants would be intercepted. >> that is correct. >> which left 85 percent of the border under something less than full control. i will yield the remainder of my time to the original and from arizona. >> i ask unanimous consent to allow mr. schleicher to participate. >> without objection.

>> you mean i could have objected? [laughter] >> okay. people can do a quick lightning round. in your written testimony there was a comment about some of the access to data and how much data was off the books. can you give me a quick snippet of how that affects policy creation and design? >> it limits the ability to interact in the academic and analytic communities and as a stifling effect on being able to develop innovative approaches to border security. >> so trying to look at data. human interaction. he does not actually have enough data sets to work from. >> the data availability. data it needs to be collected. it is also the ability to draw

an academic partners. >> well, and formerly you actually almost just touched on this the for many of us who are trying to get our hands around border policy from a border state the definitions keep changing. one day we calculated this, next this. if you are -- for human smuggling if you are captured in this, that is redefined. when you are doing your analysis is it a problem of constantly moving the definition? >> has certainly makes it more difficult. they don't have consistent measures for assessing border security. the changes from your the year. we have had reports that i've

talked about the important need. the impact of technologies that have been deployed. we have been critical of the abilities and demonstrate the deploy technology. >> from my understanding this is a bigger issue. it is hard to know what you are chasing when they don't tell you where they change the definition and then there is the whole cultural decision. can you ever have a large bureaucracy be nimble and flexible, fixed technology when the other side is incentivize to constantly beat the technology and be more nimble. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. at this point i would like to thank the witnesses for their voluble testimony. they will not be returning. we will be adjourning shortly. everyone has been able to ask their questions. your written testimony and oral

testimony is now able to the subcommittee. members of the committee may have additional questions and we ask that you respond to those in writing. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and questions from members. at this point the witnesses are excused and the hearing is a deterrent. [inaudible conversations] ..