we conclude it was not the right system to go across the entire border and was much too expensive. we scaled down our ambition somewhat and selected and much more modest portfolio of systems that the border patrol selected and tailored to each area of the border. we focus that on arizona because that's what action was at the time. we are in the throes of

completing a plan, it consists of everything from small hand-held longer-range binoculars like sensors to more complex systems on hightower's with radars and cameras that are connected in a command-and-control center. the purpose of the systems is to get the border patrol better information about what's on the ground, what the threat of that activity is, whether it's a microburst somebody carrying a weapon, and more options for how to respond. outside of arizona the border patrol as indicated to us that his activity there is migration because we've done things in arizona, traffic has migrated over a variety of other reasons. south texas you know is an area. largely has been based on dod reuse. congress has been a very strong advocate of as part and with the department of defense used what

was already taxpayer investments to leverage those bar capacity and we've been very successful with that in south texas. we are flying aerostats and balloon now surveillance that we probably would not have had until 20 key or 2019. that's a quick summary of our progress and i look forward to answering your questions as we go forward. >> thankforward. >> thank you. our next witness is deputy chief ronald vitiello. deputy chief of the border patrol. you serve as an agent and supervisor roles of laredo sector, tucson sector in chief patrol agent of the rio grande valley sector. deputy chief botelho? >> thank you chairman johnson, senator parker griffith a pleasure for me to be here to appear before to discuss how technology and part two of the structure acts as force multiplier's between the ports of entry. i'm pleased represent the border patrol agents the crucial

contribution they make it homeland security enterprise and teachers. this is especiallespeciall y can washington culminating in the nation please are whistleblower on the south capital longer we observed chief fisher, the commission, deputy commissioner, deputy secretary and the secretary commemorate the valor of the fallen, specifically in the unveiling of the to the names on the memorial. we honor them and the other one in 15 guardians the nation lost in 2014. of the basic for the commission has not changed in the past 90 years, the operational environment in which we work at the threats we face have changed dramatically. today our mission includes deterring acts of terrorism, detecting and intercept and smuggling and trafficking preventing and responding to other criminal activity. the effective deployment of fixed and mobile technology tactical infrastructure is critical to border patrol

operations. with these resources, frontline is more informed, effective and safer. the border patrol works closely with our technology development and acquisitions colleagues within cbp and dhs to develop requirements, evaluate and deploy technology and infrastructure. the deployment of tactical infrastructure including fencing, roads and lighting is a critical part of our security efforts. it denies, deters and slows down illegal entrants providing more time for agents to respond. detection technology supplement physical barriers by extending the visual range and awareness of agents. ground sensors alert agents to movement and activity while mounted cameras and sensors on aircraft its towers and on border patrol vehicles can be controlled remotely to verify targets. all of this works together and enables the border patrol to gain situational awareness direct response teams, and forewarned any danger otherwise unknown along the way.

the border patrol evaluates our situational awareness fostered and adjust our capabilities to secure our borders. we work closely to identify and develop technology such as time of detection and monitoring technology small unmanned aircraft systems, tactical communications upgrades and border surveillance tools tailored for the southwest and northern borders. there is no doubt that technology is a critical factor in the border patrol strategic plan which implements a security approach based on risk. a strategy going for both emphasized joint planning and execution advancing have a network approach, and the dhs wide unity of effort thanks again for the opportunity to testify how technology and tactical infrastructure help us secure the border. >> thank you. our next witness is director anh duong. pretty close? >> yes. >> one out of four is not today.

director duong is the director borders and maritime security division and science and technology director for the department of homeland security where she focuses on developing technologies to put into operational use along our seize land and air borders and ports of entry. she came to the u.s. as a refugee of four from vietnam and spent 25 years working in naval science and technology directing all just navy explosive research and develop a. >> good afternoon chairman johnson and senator booker. thank you for this opportunity to testify along with my colleagues from custom and border protection with whom he worked closely. the science and technology directorate's mission is to deliver effective and integrated inside, methods and solutions for the critical needs of the homeland security enterprise under the leadership of undersecretary. we have defined our visionary goals which are driven by the

2014 quadrennial homeland security review, white house policy, congressional guidance, and secretary johnson unity of effort initiative. these goals are screaming secure that matches the pace of life from a trusted cyber future, protecting privacy commerce and community, enable the decision-maker, actual information at the speed of thought, respond of the future protected, connected and fully aware, and resilient communities, disaster printing society. three of these goals are relevant to border security. screening at speed enable the decision-maker, and respond to the future. all three require a comment enabler, namely situational awareness in order to screen people and goods with the minimum disruption at a pace of enable decision makers at various levels and armed responders with information to keep them safe and fully aware.

from an operational standpoint given abroad border against a multitude of ever-changing threats, the need for total situational awareness is paramount. smt employs technology as a powerful force multiplier to improve situational awareness which in turn enables security. inserting both smt vision and goals and today's operational needs, we are pursuing an enterprise capability to provide improved situational awareness across the homeland security enterprise, called the border and coastal information system, or basis. this work includes integrating and federating existing standalone data sources, developing a new sense of system to great nudity, developing and integrating decision support tools and analytics to translate data into actionable information, and sharing information with partners.

but development for the basis is ongoing for the maritime environment. work for our land border start in fy '15. the gaps in situational awareness and provide new data sources, numerous develop systems are undergoing operational assessment while providing interim capability. examples include a systemwide system in arizona to detect illegal border crossings et al. activity monitoring system in texas, a candidate years century sharing pilot, and a system for detecting and tracking small paragraph in washington. and operations used in texas to small -- scans photograph for contraband or technology is an essential ingredient of effective border security. we will continue to collaborate with our components and partners to bring technology to operational use and help enhance the border security. i thank the committee for give me the opportunity to testify on

this very important subject. >> thank you. our next witness is rebecca gambler. ms. gambler for the record is government accountability office homeland security and justice kennedy. shealy gao's work on border security, immigration and dhs management. prior to joining gao she worked at the national endowment for democracy international forum for democratic studies. director gambler. >> good afternoon chairman johnson and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify at today's hearing to discuss gao's work redoing dhs efforts to acquire and deploy various technologies and other assets along u.s. borders. dhs s&t would've a right of assets in its efforts to secure the southwest border including berries land-based surveillance technologies tactical infrastructure which includes fencing, roads and lighting, and air and marine craft the gao and support on dhs dhs' management

oversight of these assets and programs, including numerous reports on surveillance technologies under the former secure border initiative and the current arizona border surveillance technology plan. jail assault report on fencing and other tactical infrastructure with about 652 miles of pedestrian feel censoring currently in place on the southwest border. my remarks today reflect our findings in three areas with her to dhs' efforts to secure the border. one come dhs' efforts to implement the arizona border surveillance technology plan to come gdp and i.c.e. efforts to modernize radio systems and three, cbd office of air and marine mix and placement of assets. first cbp has made progress toward deploying programs under the arizona border surveillance technology plan including fixed and mobile surveillance systems agent portable devices and ground sensors. and these technologies have made cbp is border security efforts. however, we both reported that cbp could do more to strengthen

its management of the plan and technology program and better assess the contributions of surveillance technologies to apprehensions and seizures along the southwest border. for example, cbp has experienced delays in some of its advanced technology programs and cbp is planted for initial and full operational capability for the integrated fixed towers, for instance, have slipped by several years. we've also previously revered cbp is scheduled and lifecycle cost estimates for its high-cost programs under the plan and compare them against best practices. over all the scheduled estimates reflected some but not all best practices, and we found that cbp to take further action to better ensure the reliability of its schedules and cost estimates by more fully a plane best practices. further, cbp has identified mission benefits of its surveillance technology such as improved situational awareness and agency depicts cbp has also

begun requiring border patrol to record data within its database on whether or not an asset such as a camera assisted in an apprehension or seizure. these are positive steps. however, a cbp needs to develop an intimate performance measured and analyze data is now collecting to be able to fully process the contributions of its technologies to border security. second, with regard to radio systems, earlier we reported cbp and i.c.e. have taken action to upgrade the tactical communications infrastructure. for example, cbp and i.c.e. completed various modernization programs for the tactical communications such as upgrading outdated equipment and expanding coverage in some areas. however, agents and officers to use the rating system reported experiencing challenges such as coverage gaps and interoperability issues which affected their operations. we also found cbp and i.c.e. could take further steps to strengthen and record training

an upgraded radio systems provided to officers and agents. third come with regard to air in marine assets, and 2012 we reported the office of air and marine a better ensure that its mix and placement of assets were effective and efficient by for example, more clearly linking deployment decisions commission needs and threats document analyses used to support decision on the next and placement of assets and considering the deployments of border technology affect requirements for air and marine assets. we found that these steps were needed to help cbp better determine the extent to which its allocation decisions were effective in addressing customer needs and threats. enclosing we have made recommendations to dhs and all of these areas and others to help the department and its efforts to manage and implement technologies, infrastructure and other assets to secure the border. dhs is agreed with some of these recommendations address actions

plans are underway to address some of them. we will continue to monitor dhs' efforts in response to our recommendations. thank you again for inviting me to testify and i'll be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate time. >> thank you to our next witness is michael garcia legislative attorney for the congressional research service or his work since 2003. in his capacity he has focused on issues relating to immigration and border security, international law and national security. mr. garcia. >> thank you, chairman johnson ranking member carper, and members of the committee. i'm honored to be testify before you today regarding the legal authorities and requirements related to the deployment of fencing and other barriers along the u.s. borders. the primary statute governing barrier deployment in section one '02 of the illegal immigration reform inadequate response of the act of 1996 which are referred to as the 1996 act. section 102 was amended in 2005

2006 and 2007. these revisions coupled with increased funding for border projects resulted in hundreds of miles of fencing being deployed along the southwest border however it appears addition since deployment largely halted after 2011. section 102 as three key features. section 1028 expressly authorizes dhs to deploy barriers and roads along the borders to deter illegal crossing. section 102 b. provides that fencing shall be installed upon not less than 700 miles of the southwest border. but fencing is not required at any particular location when dhs determines that other means are better suited to obtain control. and section 102 c allows the dhs secretary to waive any legal requirement that impedes the expeditious construction of border barriers and roads.

in recent years attention has primarily focused on section one '02 b. and section 102 c sal focus my comments on those provisions. prior to the most recent and them at the 1996 act -- the current version of section one oh t. be no longer requires fencing to be double layer. and provides dhs with discretion regarding where fencing should be installed. although section 102 b. is sometimes characterized as requiring seven miles of fencing, the provision actually states that fencing shall be deployed along not less than seven miles of the southwest border. in other words, the requirement prioritizes the amount of the border covered by fencing as opposed to a fencing used by dhs. classier dhs stated that fencing

of been deployed from among roughly six and 52 miles of the southwest border. there may be questions regarding the firmness of the seven are mild language. section 102 b states that now within its requirement doj's is not required to construct fencing at any particular location where it deems fencing inappropriate. this clause could be interpreted to mean that while dhs must deploy fencing along seven miles of the border it is not required to deploy fencing agony discrete point. a broader reading of this clause might permit dhs to construct fencing along less than seven miles of the southwest border if the agency believes that fencing is only appropriate along less mileage. however, there are a number of challenges to such a meeting to as an initial matter the notwithstanding clause does not say that dhs may construct fencing along a lesser mileage of the border. it is fencing isn't required at any particular location.

if dhs may construct only the amount of fencing it deems appropriate, it is unclear why section 102 b would state that fencing shall be deployed along not less than seven miles of the southwest border. the legislative history of section 102 b along with several quarts of description of the provision also seem to give greater support for understanding the seven and my requirement as a firm one. dhs officials have seemingly taken differing interpretations of section section 102 b over the years. a courts consideration of this issue may depend upon whether the meaning of section 102 b is seen as ambiguous and dhs' construction is teamed reasonable. in any event there is no statutory deadline or when the required fencing must be completed. and it is also not clear who would have standing to bring a legal challenge against dhs is fencing strategy. turning to section 102 c this provision in grants that dhs secretary the power to waive legal requirements that may impede the construction of

border, roads and barriers. waiver authority has been used to facilitate both the construction and upkeep of border projects. this authority could not be used to waive constitutional requirements. just compensation its be given to private property owners whose land is condemned for purposes of barrier installation this concludes my prepared statement. up a happy to educate questions you have. >> enka, mr. garcia. i'm kind of interpreting your testimony that congress might pass a law that wasn't crystal clear? i guess i would be shocked. senator corker, i guess you'll have to leaders unhappy given over to for the time being. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman forgive me this opportunity want to direct one questioner, to say i will be preparing for some balls to the fore with regards to the train accident in a senator carper was on the train and got up early and i'm happy to see he is here and well. i just want to express my sympathy to the loss of life and

the more than 100 people that are in the hospital right now recovering from their injuries. i just want to ask this one question before have to run. ms. gambler, from the notes i have, customs and border protection spent about $2.4 billion to complete roughly 670 miles from border fence the vast majority which was a single layer fence designed to keep possession, vehicles and such from crossing. if congress were to government a double layer fence that would require more land acquisition from more supplies, more labor to build and amanda by border patrol, i'm trying to understand that payoff and the cost benefit analysis in your estimation. according to the jail, and document entries in the united states during the time fell 69% return to those ex-2011 which is pretty and impressive but the drunken contraband seizures nearly doubled.

and so you're an expert look at cost and benefits and challenges the same with the border fencing and technology. if congress eventually produce another 700 miles of double layer barrier fence as part of the border bill, do you share my concern in sort of understanding a cost-benefit analysis? and what in your opinion would they be as seven miles is put into place? >> so i think that's a very important question, and it goes to something that g. oh as reported -- gao has report on to include technology which you mention, which is really being able to assess what we're getting out of different investments that were put in place along the border from what it's fencing or technology, and what we found and report on his dhs could do a better job of collecting data and developing measures and metrics to assess

what contributions they are getting out of different investments, whether that's fencing or whether or not that's technology or other assets. and so what we've recommended is that dhs take steps to better collect the data, better develop performance measures and metrics so that we can be able to answer the question you just asked him which is one of the contributions that were getting out of these a different infrastructure and technology we are putting in place spirit so it's a radical proposition. april with a whole bunch of money at the problem try to figure out what is going to get us the best result for the money that we spend given the ultimate array of decisions we have between assets like technology drones or fencing. >> and dhs certainly have some date another would allow them to assess particularly on the technology front what contributions they're getting out of the technology they deployed to seizures and apprehensions, for example, for

the towers that already been deployed. they're starting to collect that data now and what you need to do is start using that to actually analyze and assess the performance and progress they are making. >> so, therefore, politicians make decisions you really think there should be a data-driven decision through thorough analysis, is that what you're saying? >> resort i think it's important and assess the performance of the systems and that is contributing to secure the border both as relates to fencing technology and other assets they might put in place. >> ms. gambler, thank you very much. thank you, thank you for your time. >> we want to turn over to our ranking member. again we are all very place on the committee you got off in tiger if you like to say a few words and give a short opening statement. >> thank you. and i want to thank the folks on our committee and frankly, a lot of my colleagues and people around the country both expressed just personal feelings of what those of us were writing that train last night from

washington to new york are feeling and thinking. i ride the train a lot and get to know the people who are like the crew on the trains and, frankly, a lot of wonderful people and never imagined when i got off the train last night that six people from the trains would be dead this morning. we pray for all of them and particularly it also gives a prayer of thanksgiving for the first responders who turned out late at night under difficult circumstances. a lot of folks were heroes last night and heroines. notches first responders or just the crew, but a lot of passengers who did extraordinary promote things. let's keep them all in our thoughts and prayers. i used to be an amtrak board member. it's never easy and this was especially hard hit appreciate

all the feelings people have expressed very much. i want to also spread to all of you our heartfelt thanks to you for being here and to you for what you do with your lives, and trying to make our lives in many instances a lot safer and better quality of life so we are grateful for that. i want to express my thanks to chairman for holding this hearing and letting us participate in this preparation and putting together i think just a really good panel of witnesses. chairman and i am ben sasse and the board, not too many months ago, we had the opportunity to involve people from all walks of life in south texas. when the questions were asked if what do we need to do more or less in order to secure our borders? we heard a lot of things but one of the phrases we heard over and over again is technology is the key to securing the border. we've got a lot of technologies. the key to securing the border i could not agree more.

i look forward to giving more from our panel today about the technologies and other tools that can serve as what i call force multiplier's for our agents on the ground. i'm sure my colleagues and our witnesses would agree that we need smart, targeted norris dickard investments. you norris dickard investments. to me this means placing a priority on acquiring advanced cameras, sensors radar's so our agents have real-time situational awareness about our borders. for example i have been very impressed with her give technology on the drones and surveillance powers that i've seen along our borders. it also means working with the department of defense to reuse equipment that is no longer needed in theater in places like afghanistan, such as the aaron stancil but now we as long the rio grande valley. file it means making sure the assets we do have are being used effectively, grab an airplane, helicopter drone. we need to equip those assets with the right kind of cameras and japan's equivalent to make

sure we're not flying bland -- blind. i've met many a day we see chase soviet nuclear submarines when we win in southeast asia all over the world. the idea of fighting nuclear submarines using binoculars, not so effective. the idea of looking for people toin a search and rescue mission using binoculars from aircraft not so effective. when we send aircraft along the border have got the right kind of surveillance technology. we are wasting a lot of fuel and a lot of people if we are not careful. one of the things i'd like to really hear from our panel today about what technology is working on the border, what's working so we can deploy more of that find out what works, the more that come find out what doesn't work and do less of that. i also welcome hearing from each of you today what isn't working so we can reduce our expenditure on those activities. i know dhs has struggled in the past with some technology

deployments and we hope to talk about some of those lessons learned. from what i understand dhs with help from our friends at gao has already made many improvements in the acquisition policies and look for doing more about that today as well. we applaud that. one lesson i've learned over the years is you can't manage what you can't measure. we talked about this a minute ago and that's what it's of vital that teaches continue to build better metrics. another lesson from the trips i've taken to the mexican border is things can change. things do change and we've seen that as move away from california away from arizona all the way down to the south texas area over the last couple of years. in this last you with a flood the last two years with a whole lot more young people coming up and looking for places to find refuge. that may explain why i think our agencies have to be nimble. not a big one for us being

prescriptive and that of the for all the answers up here but maybe working together we can figure that out in the good listeners. we also need to listen to me expert who have told us that the border security can be one of the at the border. and those who say it cannot just be one at the border, and i don't think they it can be won only at the border. we have to take some of the steps to address some of the factors that brings us on the people to our borders. to me that means passing comprehensive immigration reform and identify what are the factors causing tens of thousands of people every year every year to try to get out of honduras, guatemala and salvador i said many times we've been shooting to the misery our addiction to methamphetamine cocaine and so forth so we have an opportunity.

it deserves our support for the other thing is i think we need comprehensive immigration reform and would make a good stab at that a couple of years ago. i hope you'll you come back and finish the job before long. so that would pretty much sum up what want to say. i'll close with this. we care a lot. i think almost everybody on this committee would probably be described as a fiscal conservative. if you look at the size of our budget deficit, go back to succeed, budget deficit peaked out at $1.4 trillion to been coming down since then, down by about two-thirds but we celebrate deficit a historical standard need to continue to work on that. three things i think we need to do. we need tax reform the lowest rates, broadens the base and helps raise money for deficit reduction. we need an entitlement reform that serves all people, poor people, but, frankly, say to these programs for our kids, find way to save money in those and other programs so they will

be around for our children and grandchildren. the and grandchildren. the last thing we do is look at everything we do. including how to secure our border in a cost effective with the this is going to be a good evening. delighted to hear. thanksthanks very much. >> you will enjoy our hearing next week talk about the 30 or deficit those projections and so some address the issues you were just racing. are speaking to the witness and begin thank you for coming, appreciate your thoughtful testimony and all the time you put into it. if you're going to solve any problem you really do need the information. that's really the basis of all these hearings is to just lay out that record, lay out the reality. and number of times in tests when we talk about having the data. we've had a number of office inspector general reports. we had one on an oem and will get into a later. with one issue today on the lack of data driving decisions based on prosecutorial discretion and deferred action for childhood

arrivals. those are suspicious in terms of not having information. one thing frustrating to me this committee will delve into the issue of immigration reform and border security is just common you know, especially as unaccounted him as a guy from a manufacturing background is just not having good solid information and data. recognizing those it's pretty difficult to obtain that but we tried to do it through testimony from getting good opinions. chief, got to start out a little housekeeping because we were made aware i think earlier today that one of our witnesses a border agent chris cabrera received a notice to appear before a cb the internal affairs for this thursday. they want to talk to him about his congressional testimony. by lutheran catechism tells me to put the best structure on is upholding the reason internal affairs wants to talk to him is

there a little concerned about some of his testimony that might vary with some information we get from dhs in general potential talked about the fact that he testified to us on a got a ways but there's a certain level of my desk in formal, potential limitation if they report more than 20 people coming through and only apprehend him and all all of the only african 10 and all of a sudden a supervisor is there providing a lot of scrutiny. i'm highly concerned about that. we bring people before this committee, swear them in. we swear them in to tell the truth and i do hope that this is an effort to understand what his testimony was in try to determine whether the are some real distortion in terms of information, the data we are going to need to solve this problem. i hope i have your commitment and customs and border protection's management that this is not any kind of intimidation or retribution.

>> thank you mr.retribution. >> thank you, mr. chairman for that observation to the question, it is, in fact, your impression is correct. we were very concerned about chris's testimony. we are very concerned about the numbers. we want you. we need ourselves to the data be as accurate as possible. crisp, we work with them very well. we work with the national border patrol council to the extent when you don't have to. they are good partners. they have been for us and we want a testament reflect accurately what happens if you he left a suggestion and impression that the was intimidation or misconduct going on in regards to the data is collected that's not my impression accomplish of agents and a supervisor and management of the area where chris was discussing our focus on doing the right thing for the right reasons. so we did, in fact, referred to remarks to the office of internal affairs for getting to the bottom of whether or not the was misconduct. it's my impression that's not what our vision and our managers do down there but it helps for us to verify.

>> that is very good news and we will be watching that. what would talk to all the technologies come the force multiplier. we heard the error stats, only a 6% of time which means they're down 40% same with uavs. i will give you a chance to respond to the office of inspector general report what do we have any information in terms of what percent of individuals we are detecting? let me say it another way. what percent situational awareness do we have? we had secretary johnson your i think two weeks ago and he's made a blanket statement appreciate the honesty, by the end of his initiation we will not achieve 100% situational awareness. i understand that. what percent are we at right now? is any estimate? can anyone speak of the? >> i can't can't be precise athletes to the situational awareness across the 2000 miles of the

southwest border. we do have a very well understood it's very well understood what activity levels are, where the hotspots for activities are and how our deployment support that. as opposed to for this hearing technology is very important to the data that we collect as relates to that activity at our observations and the recording of the outcomes of those individual interdictions feeds information where the assets and agents give us that real-time information. so in a place like downtown nogales were revisited in downtown brownsville would you have surveillance technology, a very robust deployment of agents in the downtown environment, so in real-time you can collect information about activity and the results of the activity, the results which includes the people who are arrested, the people who ran back in what we call got a ways. another location or use other methods to trying to do. is lots of space along a 2000 miles we don't have that

kind of deployment. we use things like change detection technology. there's also a piece of situational awareness that us having to understand what the capabilities of the criminal network art, how we interact with our federal law enforcement agencies, international partners who understand what's happening on the other side of the border and putting the pieces together along with the observations of people who live along the border who tell us this is out of the ordinary, this is not. if you start put all those things to get a t-shirt of what's happening across the entire border. >> we are always looking for some kind of metric. certainly laws we pass call for a metricom call for a goal of 100% situational awareness, 90% of operational control. so the question i have is as long as a lot of loss of in passing that way sort of the idea behind some of these laws i would not check the ratings have? are not trying to track that mexican out in the to -- in

anticipation of having potentially comply with the requirement for one of% situational awareness? >> we look at a suite of data, we look at a risk of recidivism, other elements the secretary is focused on any unity of effort to time the data together and giving us all a method. we have struggled with the idea of defining situational awareness. it's one of those phrases, a title we seem dollars to but when you get right down to it how do you measure something that has a different connotation for different environment. >> so with the position of the department of homeland security beaten in which is really reject or certainly resist having a piece of legislation where you got that metric 100% situational awareness? >> i think we would all enjoy having a defined set of circumstances that says if you have these four criteria and in that, then you do not situational awareness. we think it's broader. if you have technology, a piece

of machinery that surveilled the border in real-time 24/7, that's an element of situational awareness but there are other pieces to the. it becomes difficult to decide exactly where you're at and what the actual definition is spent while were on this topic before turned over to our ranking member, does anybody else want to comment on this? ms. gambler? >> as i've mentioned, we've reported on the need or cbp to put in place measures to assess progress made in securing the border. we've reported as well you are asking questions about the sort of estimating flow and things like that. our understanding and certainly chief vitiello can speak to this press but if i can but those are estimates when you talk about things like that. the border patrol does record apprehensions but the other data points that go into estimating

flow turned backs and got cutaways as we discuss are estimated by the border patrol. >> thank you. senator carper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that timeline that i'm on, i have all the time in the world i'm going to yield my time for while and maybe i could pick up a little bit. thanks. >> thank you, senator carper. follows up on the chair with questions, did any of you have a concise definition for situational awareness? okay. that's good enough. i which is to say i think before we can even talk about situational awareness and how important situational awareness is, i don't know what the hell we're talking about. so the next question is is situational awareness a prerequisite for having a secure border? chief? >> i believe if we can come to terms on the definition for situational awareness and you can constructively then go from

there, recognize what the data is an say whether you have situational awareness or not and based on activity levels, the capability of cbp and others bring to the border security and private been you can leap from there or jump from there or work out from there to secure border definition. >> all right. moving forward here i think we all want to have a secure border. look, i mean come that we want to get hung up on terminology we get hung up on terminology. basically we want to know how many people are getting two to or how may people are being apprehended. how secure is to come how safe is it. are we spend the money in ways that makes sense? whether it's on drones or radar or ground sensors or fences. and so the next question i have come and most of these are going to be to you, chief but mr. murkowski county feel free to jump in if you feel the necessity to.

can you tell me are drones use on the northern border? >> yes, they are used on the northern border. >> are the used in concert with the canadian? >> no. they're used in conjunction with the border patrol's. so it's a joint effort of? >> no, it is not. >> how about radar in the northern border of? >> we do pull in all faa radar feeds. >> how about radar under 5000 feet on the northern border of? >> the coverage is limited. >> what about ground -- ground sensors speak with this. on the northern border, and those feeds are directly shared across international lines. >> how many minds -- how many miles which is on the northern border our ground sensors utilize? >> i could be precise to the record with some data -- >> when were talking technology like drones and ground sensors in particular, less on radar but ground sensors and drones in particular. is a better some reduction in

manpower when they are utilized or is that not the case? >> as they making us more efficient, is that how you been? >> what i'm saying is if you're using drones can you get by with less people on the ground and still have a safe mortar? >> correct. both the sensors and aircraft allow for us to do more with fewer people. >> that's good to know. can you tell me other than shared in the ground sensor information, canada is a pretty good ally of ours. is anything else you guys do in a jointly? >> yes. under several frameworks done by both leadership in the department at higher levels, we work with canada in almost every area as it relates to border security, homeland security and defense. there's a lot of programs, a lot of interaction day-to-day. we are people assigned in canada that work out of my office. >> there's private land public

land, national parks, indian reservations. do you people go across private land without permission? >> typically we are on the border everywhere, both private and public land. in places where we know the land is private there is a recognition on the landowner, and within 25 miles, as the job demands we enter private land. >> thank you for that. that's better than what i think i got her information last week so i appreciate that. when you i want to talk about partnerships for a second. .com when i first got into job i think the border patrol did a poor job as was building partnerships, and dissident at nine years ago so you have improved with highway patrol with local police folks, with ranchers, farmers. hopefully with other agencies, to.

i'm talking about federal agencies. how do you feel those partnerships are working? is there anything we can do to make those partnerships work better? >> i believe that we've recognize that that's part of how we're going to be successful in the environment we work having partnerships leveraging each other's authority come exchange information so that people are recognizing where threats are. that's always going to be part of the future. was adopted as a way forward. we interact quite a bit with the leadership and law enforcement, and the stone garden program that congress gave us several years back after the department was created is a very useful tool for us and is very well thought of by state and local. >> could you give your assessment of border security in blackfeet indian reservation, for example? i don't want to single those

out. with a blackfeet reservation compared to others areas on the northern border, which is its equivalent, better, worth? >> not aware of any decisions we have specifically. >> how about with glacier national park? >> essay. we have an ongoing working relationship to be present and understand their concerns as well as being present on the border and patrolling. >> so the need for additional tools when it comes to those lands you've got it with operations don't garden, with your park service relationships relationships, memorandums of understanding whatever you might have? >> correct we do. >> i just want to say thank you for your work, all of you. most of the questions were too wrong because i like them. but the truth is i appreciate all your work, you got some people behind you that also worked for bernard and i work at -- and i appreciate him coming to. the key is that we have limited

money here at least i think that's across the board but i'm not sure it's across the board. we have to make sure it's spent directly in the program. i know we might want a knee-jerk reaction to things when they happen but the truth is if we listen to you folks, i think we make better decisions. thank you for your service. >> senator carper? >> thanks. thanks, mr. chairman. sometimes, let me just ask how many testified on the subject before, before either a house or senate committee, subcommittee? just raise your hand. mr. garcia, where have you been doing her day job speak with testifying under the things. >> good enough. if you've been before this committee one of us about asked us -- give us an idea or two

about some things that don't work. we really shouldn't do that. what are some things you think that don't work? especially if we had all the money in the world we don't come we have a lot of debt, we'll get more. what are some things we just ought not do, you don't think they work they are not worth the money? >> good question. >> i'm full of them. that's my best one today. >> i'm struggling with that one in terms of, because most of the stuff is i think, that does not work is tough to actually stop doing. what to do things with her and her own office with analyze across all our offices which was most effective, most efficient have been reorganized our structure they saw it.

so we have to look at that party have to look at that party regulate year over year to have to look at that party regulate year over year to see what's not working and then to either adjust our organization after assets to results of those things and we're in the process of downsizing aircraft, getting rid of about 40 50 aircraft, reorganizing our offices along the north and the south so we have our agents in the right places and -- >> hold it right there. i want you to take a couple months and think about that question. think about some things that don't work that we shouldn't be doing. go ahead, mr. murkowski. >> thank you for that question. the our a lot of lessons we learned about things we should be. for example, we should treat technology or any of the capital asset as an end. it's an means to an end. we get attacked by the bright and shiny thing ever don't think about why or how it will help us do our jobs. sometimes it's difficult because we don't always have metrics because we don't have history. we are doing things that are new to us and we have to understand that as well.

so that's one thing. technology is a means to an end, it's not an end in to itself that we can't impose technologies on people who use it. went to involve them in debt to invite us to bring technologies. that's a classic mistake. we can't aspire to immature technologies before they're ready for us really to start to use them, and we do that very often. so those are all sort of acquisition lessons learned that i would say we don't in the past that we need to remember not to do in the future. >> those are good ones. those are good ones. >> thank you. >> hold on just one second. [phone ringing] >> my phone just went off. my phone went off and it says rahm emanuel use the the president's chief of staff but

he is now the mayor of chicago. i don't think it's him calling that whoever has his old job over that is probably calling. we will figure out who that is. >> i agree with my colleagues, assistant commissioner murkowski that this is a child to question. i think we have a -- >> excuse me. i got a phone call for the chief of staffs poppe boss. i'm going to ask you to excuse me for just a second or i'll come back and try to reclaim my time. i apologize. i'm still going to ask that question, excuse me. >> let's talk about fencing. when we were preparing for this meeting we've got a chart official of the different types of dancing but one of the charts i wanted to produce was come i wanted to lay out the border, and i wanted to specifycome here are the different types of fencing along the lines and i found i get sure that because it's law enforcement sensitive. i will first ask chief vitiello

why would the fencing and the quality of the fencing and the type of fencing along the border be law enforcement sensitive? that's a secret that isn't exactly a secret. >> i really don't understand that as well. i think that the documents that were sent over that we were traded back and forth that we are trying to the bootleg and preparing for today's testimony were marked. i'm not sure the origination of those markings. i agree with you if you live in a community that has the benefit of fencing as -- >> kind of know where it is your us after a drug smuggler you do know where that is the you've got it all mapped out spent if you start to aggregate images that you show pictures crossed the southwest border and it's easy to pick up somebody vulnerabilities that may be the origination of the markings but we will certainly -- >> i want to say we have our strength and weaknesses.

talk to me and maybe, trying to think it would be best here. how effective can fencing be? and what has been the real problem in constructing it? we have environmental laws. we have eminent domain issues. we have lawsuits. we pass laws that exempt ourselves from those. but what's been the real reality? we have built close to 70 miles of fencing. you can tell by the different types of fencing there some that works pretty good and some that come you do obviously might stop a truck but certainly isn't going to stop human being. who is the best just to kind of talk about the history of the multiple laws we have passed to build fencing and then we relaxed them set them up for discussion, they are not crystal clear, we don't, i mean, do we really have to build 700? there's no time horizon on a.

what's happened? we will start with mr. garcia and then -- >> mr. chairman, if i understand the first question you had was about possible impediments. legal impediments to fence construction. >> correct. >> when congress first expressed their deployment in 1996 although there was barrier deployment before the company provided a waiver vhs or guess at the time the immigration naturalization service could wave to laws. nepa and endangered species act. those two waivers in many observers mind was insufficient. the ins was required to deploy essentially complete a triple layered fencing project in san diego, and over the course of

nine years that project wasn't completed because of impediments caused by other environmental laws. congress responded to pursuant to the real id act by providing dhs with very broad waiver authority to waive all that requirements that may impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border, not simply specify places like san diego but anywhere along the u.s. border. >> did it work? >> that waiver authority was exercised in five instances in i believe five between 2005- 2005-2008 and that survey assist the border patrol and expeditiously constructing hundreds of miles of fence along the southwest border. they were legal challenges brought to a halt, certain the border projects, but when dhs

exercise waiver authority courts would dismiss those challenges. in terms of that waiver authority i will note that it is not absolute, that type of constitutional limitations you cannot wait the constitution. another thing is that it refers specifically to the construction of barriers and roads. there is certainly some question as to whether it would apply to tactical infrastructure that is not a barrier or a road like centers or cameras. dhs when it has exercise waiver authority to border projects, it has often mentioned things like radio towers and cameras in addition to the fence but whether waiver authority could be used exclusively for, ma say you know a project to install towers or sensors along a particular stretch of the

border, dhs has never done that and i would raise a question, is that a barrier? >> okay. chief vitiello, why don't you finish it out and then i will and then i will turn back over to the ranking member. >> i think we just fencing and it's important border deployment for my entire career and images you are showing here in the top left that was designed procured and develop by mostly by border patrol agents from a lot of the national guard deployments we use over the years along the southwest border to build that fencing. effective for short-term search operations when you're adding other things, technology, et cetera, it did very well. the fencing that was brought to his eye the changes in the act and a mandate to do 700 miles or more of the other images each other, then the vehicle barrier also represented there is strategically placed in locations where it's very difficult to get to the border of foot. and so necessary to to have come

itsit's not necessary to have a pedestrian fencing places where the infrastructure doesn't support people walking towards the border. so all of them have contributed to higher levels of security. i think on the other side of the equation is a lot more expensive than we expected when we started the it was much more difficult. i was in texas at the chief of the rio grande valley in 2007-2010 comments when i arrived on duty there in 2007 we held valid consent requirement for fencing. as i recall about 75 miles. most of the fencing was built and it has made a difference but it wasn't without lots of -- excuse me? most of it is in place, yes. most of it is in place. it actually has made a difference, yes, it has. but it wasn't without lots of challenges difficult with technology and flood control, et cetera in south texas and lots of kinds of people who owned the land.

we are still in cases in court about condemnation et cetera. that's part of the history, part of the lessons learned as we went through the whole project. >> thank you. senator carper. >> thanks so much. sorry i had to leave the room for a moment. right in the middle of asking a question. i was asking a really good question i was asking you to tell us what's not working so we can do less of that. he's thinking about coming up with a great, some ideas. mr. borkowski give us a thousand great insights. ronald was i think about to get into and i had to slip out. they want to pick up where you left off the? >> and succinct on screen with both of my colleagues. i think some of the lessons we've learned with trying to fit technology without the proper kind of awareness of all of the capabilities or the lack of capabilities. i think one of the lessons we've learned is as we move into this

new version of the technology lay down, we started to use we have and are using field input for all of the installations. >> give us some examples of that spirit we have this process called capability gap analysis and those in business partner with gap analysis come as a border patrol agent if something is well-known in this environment. ..