developments, our work has identified challenges facing the border patrol and the department of all my insecurity in implementing the strategy, a consideration -- homeland security in implementing the strategy. consideration of these challenges could inform border patrol efforts as the agency begins to implement its new strategic plan. for example, we have reported on the need for the department to better assess the benefits and performance of technology and infrastructure deployed along the southwest border to help provide situational awareness. we have reported on the need for the department to enhance its oversight of task forces to help identify and reduce any potential duplication of efforts. now turning to the issue of performance measurement. the department, and security's goal of operational control would used -- was used. operational control is defined as the number of border miles where the border patrol had the ability to detect and interject

cross border illegally activity. the department must reported its progress and status in achieving operational control at the borders in fiscal year 2010. at that time, the department achieved operational control for 1,100 miles or 13%. number, southwest, and coastal borders included. southwest, specifically, the to reported operational control of 873 miles or 44% of the 2,000 miles of the u.s. border with mexico. the department of common security and border patrol have several efforts underway to develop new measures are indicators for border security programs. until these efforts are completed, the department is using interim measures such as the number of apprehensions on the southwest border. these measures provide some useful information, but do not position the department to be able to report on how effective

its efforts are at securing the border. in closing, as the border patrol transitions to a new strategic plan, it will be critical for the border patrol to provide effective direction and oversight of its implementation. it will also be important for the border to all in the department to continue to develop performance measures that are linked to goals and produce results. this concludes my oral statements. i would be pleased to insert any questions members may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. i am honored to present testimony on behalf of the congressional research service. my testimony makes three observations. first, the u.s. border in 2012 was a different place than it was in the mid-1990s's. second, the changes have been

costly. these observations lead to the third, there are important questions raised. we are at a critical and ginger with respect to how we define border security and how we understand risks and threats to the u.s. let me give -- let me begin with the changes to u.s. borders. prevention through deterrence, the idea that the concentration of personnel, and the start, and surveillance technology along heavily trafficked regions will discourage authorized -- unauthorized aliens from entering the u.s. at the new strategy published in 2004 continue to emphasize investment along the border and focused on intelligence to assess risk and target enforcement the greatest security threat, including terrorists. at the same time, announced -- ghs announced a program

emphasizing technology as well as interior enforcement and the removal practices. my written testimony include several data points that shows this implementation. the growth of a border patrol personnel, slow growth of the 1980's, faster growth in the 1990's ended the most recent decades. that is concentrated on the southwest border. there is an increasing body of evidence suggesting that these investments have paid off. as we have heard, apprehensions of on offer as migrants are at their lowest level. my testimony includes additional indicators that suggests illegal migration falling. factors including the u.s. economic downturn, crime and violence in mexico, mexico's strong economic recovery since 2010, demographic changes in mexico, the data suggest the

u.s. enforcement efforts are an important factor behind declining illegal migration. this figure illustrates one of the cause still dynamics. the figure shows two measures in the fees. they were flat during the edie's and then rose sharply beginning in the early 1990's for the first half of the last decade. the figures suggest it is easy to cross the border during the 80's aboard a vocal during the 90's. these gains at the border have entailed costs. my written testimony identifies the number of unintended consequences of border enforcement on migration flows and a number of indirect costs.

border enforcement intel's opportunity costs. the for example, this figure compares border security between points of entry to resources for inspections and enforcement at points of entry. enforcement between the forest -- between the points has increased. for enforcement between the ports has increased 99% while after the ports have increased 12%. we think the border security in terms of how the unauthorized migrants make it through the arizona desert. the 2012 strategy highlights the border patrol's bader petroll -- the border patrol's focus and management. weapons of mass destruction, drugs and other contraband,

potential terrorists and other bad actors and then regular and authorized migrants. these threats have different risk profiles. are ats agree that wmd's high consequence threat. regular illegal migration is a low consequent higher probability threat. the entry of illegal drugs is in between on both of these dimensions. the threats also differ across borders zones. the southwest border between points of entry is a point of vulnerability with respect to illegal migration in marijuana smuggling. wmd's and other drugs and contraband both are considered more likely to be smuggled into the u.s. through a port of entry rather than carried across the border. given existing infrastructure, the southwest border may not be the greatest point of vulnerability with terrorists. they may be more likely to attack -- attempt entry through a port or to canada or in coastal border. given the gains at the border,

the strategy offers a moment to think about the broader context and bottom line goals for u.s. border security. what are the most sick -- serious security threats? what investments most effectively reduce risk to the u.s. thank you for the opportunity. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, doctor. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. particularly you, chief. you are the only one here in uniform. hopefully, we are looking at this critically. i appreciate did you articulating the -- appreciate you articulating the long history. i was taking notes as you were talking and i have been looking at your new strategic plan here a bit. as you mentioned, information

integration and rapid response and also about the amount of $400 billion -- $4 billion the taxpayers have invested in technology. with all the technology that we do need to utilize, obviously, for all of our borders, sometimes there is really no second for human intel. really. as i mentioned, at the outset, i am certain much of the bomb squad was human intel. -- intelligence. same thing applies for border security in many ways. it seems to me that a good way to get that kind of intelligence and is utilize or certainly you mentioned in the strategic plan here when you talk about increasing community engagement and these kinds of

things. with all the various stakeholders at all of our borders, as well. we have said that they are a force multiplier. you can get more intelligence from the local law enforcement to sort out in the neighborhood david and sharing that information with you, whether that is at the southern or northern border to what have you. one thing about the street talk -- your officers are trained to understand and to develop assessment based on some of that intelligence and also, and i am not sure you have that in here, but i was recently -- i am from detroit. i was recently over on the canadian side looking at what our canadian counterparts were doing. what did they have? dogs. with all the technology, they were sniffing everything that went through whether it was people or drugs.

it is not something high-tech. when you have all of these military dogs coming back sniffing with ied's and everything else, we talked about how that could be a lawyer of your strategic approach to border security. i mentioned that because when we talk about defense and looking at ports of entry, making utilization of interior checkpoints, i know along the northern border and i think the southern, as well, a big part of what you were doing was going into the terminal and talking to folks, transportation hubs, sometimes just a random approach that is incredibly important. i guess i would ask if you are still doing that. i am not sure if you are continuing to do that. what is your thought of by utilizing the community engagement for intelligence gathering, which i think is a certainly critical component?

>> we are still doing checkpoints. we are moving away from the term defense in depth because that implies a fundamental strategic imperative, it to rain denial. it made sense to have some defense in depth like check for an operation, whether they were technical or permanent. we would continue and that is what we have asked the field chiefs to look at. just because it is not written in those few pages of the strategy, the strategy is a broad framework of how we want the organization to start thinking. there will be things that we will continue to do and if it makes sense to continue on that path forward, we will do that. with respect to the community engagement, it is critical for our leaders to understand the change from community relations

toward community engagement. as you articulate it, we have for 21,370 border patrol agents. we have 21,370 intelligence collectors. we have to train them to recognize that every individual that they encounter is a potential source of information. we do not want to discount open source information. people that live in the border communities have a lot of information that, unless we ask them, will not be able to share that with us. that was a lesson learned in 2006 and 2007 when the department of defense shifted thinking in terms of their strategy and how they were going to confront, you know, the threats they were seeing overseas. the same broad approach, we are taking that. we want to make sure we do not ask someone to give us a call if we see something, take the time and explain to them what is

suspicious and why it is important they responded. it is a strategic shift, as well in terms of what our expectations are for the communities in which we serve. >> i appreciate you saying that because -- in the northern sector -- if you have all of the various stakeholders in michigan. you mentioned the dod. from the need togo know to the need to share. we need to share information on. in the case of oic, we have the state police, the county, all of the marine patrols, etc.

the local cities and village police departments and first responders, all of the information is being analyzed by state of the our data. you are using the computers to analyze the human intelligence that can assess the threat and can have a product that you can give to the men and women on the front lines. the department to think about replicating that. it has had great success in that particular area. i know my time has run over. i just have -- what is really new in this strategic plan? everything in here, i mean i agree with it, but there was nothing they grabbed me as being new. is there anything new that you would highlight as an important component of this plan? >> i will give you one example. i will give you two examples. one is the change detection capability. the other one talks about

optimizing capability. we were not able to do that eight years ago because while we had a -- because we did not have resources or technology that allowed us in to look into areas like the northern border or some of the remote areas along the southern border because we were not able to get into those locations. road systems did not exist. the train did not lend itself for patrols in the area. with the uas systems, we have the ability to use things like synthetic radar to fly along the border to confirm or deny any changes in the threat environment. we can use technology to be able to understand where the threats are going to be evolving. the phrases are new and taking new meaning when you look at the implementation. >> just as a follow up, do any

of the witnesses have a comment as to what is new in the plan? do you agree with the chief or have something else that had caught your eye? >> from our perspective, some of the same elements are in the 2012 strategy as were in bed 2004 strategy. there is a different level of emphasis on some of the capabilities and a different way of thinking through how this might be implemented going forward. i think there is a difference in emphasis to some extent. >> dr.? >> i would agree that there is a clear evolution when you look at the prevention through deterrence in the 1990's through the 2004 plan. there is a clear trend of border patrol describing having adequate resources now put in place at the border and thinking more strategically about how to deploy them and use them flexibly. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the ranking

member. >> thank you. doctor, let me ask you -- let me say thank you for the report you gave us and also, members, if you have not seen the congressional research report of the border security immigration enforcement between ports of entry, i would ask for one of the charts for the prices. i appreciate the work you have done. let me ask you about the changes. do you know -- have they appointed a performance improvement officer? >> that is supposed to be under the law. -- that is supposed to be under the law. >> i do not know. >> have they started working according to the law priority

goals? have they said a priority goals? or is that under homeland security? i see there are certain things they are supposed to be doing -- >> there are certain things they are supposed to be doing. >> i know they owe some reports to you guys and i have not seen all of them. >> ok. have you all done that? do you know who your performance improvement officer is? is that more under homeland? >> both. within our strategic policy and plans division within the headquarters, we have people assigned it who work closely -- >> i apologize for interrupting. you are supposed to have a high- ranking officer that is supposed to be under the law. i do not know if that is under the umbrella -- do you know who your chief improvement officer is? >> i do not know whether that is in border patrol.

it might be in the department level. we have people who run the reports and work on a continual basis to make sure that whenever we are reporting against the government requirements each year, they are doing that in concert with the department. >> ok. are you familiar with the interagency performance improvement council? >> i am not, sir. >> ok. i would ask the lady behind you if she would look at house bill 21-42. agencies are supposed to be following certain things. it has to do with the performance measures and what the priority goals are. i would ask you to respectfully take notes and a look at that law and report back to us on that. the reason i say that is because i know there are some changes. i am sure all the work -- there have been changes moving away

from operational control as of september 30. if you look at the definition, 80% of our borders were classified as managed control. there is a definition as to operational control. we had 12% of all the borders that were under operational control. the rest were under managed control. is that correct? >> -- >> there are definitions and you go through what managed and operational control mean. out of the southwest border, we are under operational control. the northern border come out of all the miles, 69 miles were

under operational control. under the whole coastal east and west, only 165 miles were under operational control. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> , border patrol is moving into another type of -- border patrol is moving into another type of performance measures. sense headquarters has not come up with a new performance measure or bowl -- goal, different officers at different ports are using different interim measures for reporting measures. correct? >> that is what i understand. there are a number of additional measures that border patrol does track. including their estimates of --

they track apprehensions. we know something about that. the measures he were citing operational control and effective control, refer to the time within which someone enters the border. i understand, and the chief can tell you more about this, but the stations also track estimates of how many people get away in successfully enter the u.s. and how many people are turned back. those are kind of things that could be incorporated into our analysis of the apprehension rate and illegal flows. >> under the -- as of april 2012, border patrol headquarters officials were working to develop a border security bills and measures. they have not giving you a target timeframe as to when they will be implementing that? here, we are talking about a strategy, correct?

the first part is the strategy but then we have to go into the goals and into the measure. how you measure results from failure? so, and you have an idea of one we will get to -- thank you. i appreciate the strategic. we have to go to the goals in the measures. any idea when that will happen? >> we are looking at the beginning of the next calendar year. although, i should mention is not as if we are erasing everything we have done and trying to come up with new things. we are trying to ducktail -- dovetail into those things we have previously used and inform the on some of the datasets. when it comes to mind is apprehension. we have talked with in this committee about apprehensions telling us anything in terms of the extent to which we are being successful and/or levels of border security. what is interesting is we are looking at those apprehensions

as a starting point to really delve down and understand the rate of recidivism and real apprehension in different locations and comparing them to make sure we have a better sense of what is actually happening, not just independently trying to evaluate on whether the apprehensions went up or down. he is a whole host of rethinking. we're looking at new measures to include the effectiveness ratio. >> yes. my time is over. i would ask you, and again, chief, to look at the requirements that are in law already. i would ask you to look at page 21 of appendix two of the report. it talks about performance measures. they should cover core activities the border patrol is expected to perform. measure should be balanced.

mr. scheck should link aligned measures with other components that successful levels of the organization. they should reflect priorities such as quality. there should be a numerical goal to be reasonably -- to be reliable producing the same results in the same conditions. i ask you to do that. i appreciate the strategic plan, but we still have a lot more work to do to get to the goals. we know exactly the -- so we know exactly what we are measuring. i appreciate all of the good men and women that work for you. i know is very hard. -- it is very hard. we are putting so much money into homeland security. again, we look forward to

working with you. i would ask you to work with dr. rosenberg on some of the ideas here. especially the requirements. >> yes. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee. mr. thompson. >> thank you. chief, one of the constants that this committee runs into his department or agencies will, with a new plan, a new strategy. when you talk about who was involved in crafting the new plan of strategy, it ends up being just a snapshot of agencies rather than the agency as a whole. can you tell us, in developing this new strategy or the third strategy that i have been a part

of, did we involved other counterparts in putting it together like the marines and other operations? tell us about this. >> yes, congressman. that is a great question. it has been in process to design and develop a strategic plan for 18 months. during that process, not only within cdp and the other offices you have mentioned, there were opportunities to develop a strategy throughout. we had input from the department. even before that, as we were working with our field commanders and we had them reach out to the employees to understand and help us develop the framework, as well, we wanted to make sure that we harnessed the idea s from the field leadership. we had about a dozen people outside the uniform.

some retired border patrol agents. in some cases, they were folks that we had worked with throughout our last few years. certainly, we respected their opinions and whether it was in the academic environment or in some outside consulting. we had to take a look at that -- we had them take a look at it. it was not done in a vacuum. it needed broad perspective in order to put this together. part of the implementation plan is taking on that same approach. >> in this process, did you have any state or local involvement in the preparation of this plan strictly plancdp? cdp?in >> i am not sure.

it was not at my direction for them to do so because it was a working draft and it was the broad draft and really a broad strategy. i can tell you when we design the implementation plan clearly, state and locals will have to sit down and decide what it means to implement in their operational environment. it will be done with a broader a broadereye as well. -- broader law enforcement eye as well. >> can you -- maybe a little premature. are we able to quantify the new strategy as being put forward at this point or would that come a little later? we are talking about operational control. there are some things we could measure. have we arrived at that point yet? or are we still in the infancy of how we put it together?

>> at this point, border control has not release performance goals and measures for assessing how effective it will be at implementing its new strategic plan. that is something the border patrol will be focused on going forward and has efforts underway right now to develop some new or additional measures. i think you are raising an important point, which in the interim, the border patrol is using the number of apprehensions of the southwest border as its primary performance measure -- which will be put out in the annual performance report. as we discussed, that kind of measure has some useful information, in that it provide insights into activity levels of the border patrol, how many apprehensions they are making. what is really important and key going forward is for the border patrol and department to move more toward outcome oriented measures that would allow the department, congress, and the public to get a sense how

effective the efforts are. >> chief, is that where you're headed? >> yes, sir. >> good. dr. -- you have had the opportunity to look at each one of the department's efforts. do you have some comments on where we are at this point with this one? >> yes, thank you, congressman. i think just to echo a couple of points that were made and to respond to both of your questions, in terms of these romney measures, i would just add that even as we -- outcome measures, i would just that even as we wait there are important data sources that exist that we should be looking at. for example, the data that border patrol -- dhs already tracks in the database, in addition looking to apprehensions.

the report mr. koher looks at is unique apprehensions, which allows us to look at recidivism and re-apprehension rate is what border patrol was looking at. it goes off for more insight beyond simply apprehension and allows us to say quite a bit more about what we know about the effectiveness and the illegal flows. cdp, office of field operations does some tracking. a sample of people who are admitted and don't go through the -- would not normally receive secondary inspection, they subject a sample to secondary inspection and they can do an analysis that we of how many appear to be getting through and to make an estimate of illegal migration through the ports. so, there are important data sources out there that are not systematically part of our conversation that probably could be and should be. so, i think certainly when you compare over time, for what dhs,

that are collecting a lot more data and putting us in a position to say a lot more than a starkly we have been able to say about what is happening in different sectors and different border zones and the ports. so, i am optimistic they will continue to do a better job tracking that kind of information. >> thank you. i yield back, madam chair. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> i want to piggyback on something you said earlier, the need to share. dr. rosenblum, you mentioned the biometric id system. how integrated is that with other agencies? we heard testimony about visa overstays, and i raised questions about how these agencies are communicating about illegal entries or these overstays or the people the cbp sees is a trend. and so i am concerned, the 9/11

commission report identifies that agencies were not talking. this is very, very important to me. how integrated to you think that is? >> the agency people could give you an answer to that question. my understanding is -- as you know, it is not part notcbp or ice, but a separate office, with in the u.s. visit system and there is a proposal to move now into cbp and ice. my understanding is all the difference dhs agencies has access to the database through u.s. visit and there is extensive -- at least information sharing between d between dod and state. state tax and to that in the visa issuance process. -- state taps into that.

but i cannot speak to have smooth integration is. >> his contact our office on information on how we are sharing some of that. sort of off on a tangent from what we are talking about today. the lady mentioned earlier, the gao the fines the extent of operational control defined as the number of border miles were border patrol has the ability to detect, respond to, and it and interdict cross border illegal activity. that is a fairly defined metric. and then she goes on in her testimony to say, however, the performance for measures to be used to provide oversight and accountability for the new strategic plan have not yet been established. i think the gentleman from laredo, texas, was kind of going down that. how do we define the mentor? in our meeting, chief fisher,

you said you wanted to refrain operational control in this new strategy. can you elaborate really how you will do that? >> i would be happy to. and i think your question -- one of the things we were looking at two years ago, certainly in the 2006 secure fence act, -- was the fine. a border patrol or use in to report -- gao has the definition, everybody has a different understanding of operational control. i can tell you at the tactical level where these were border patrol chief that would report a year all the miles we were talking up over the last few years, the tactical definitions -- let's just take for controlled and managed. each of the definition start with the phrase "a bordered the zone will be considered controlled when resources are at such a level that" and then it

qualified basically the border zone or the activity levels. when you look at the definition, it was solely dependent on resources. so, if you did not have the resources, either the controlled managed level, because both the definition start with that phrase -- the border patrol was not going to increase effective control, which by definition was either at the control or been managed level. what we wanted to be the do it refraining that is have a better understanding it is not necessarily dependent on resources as much as it is on intelligence. what are the threats on the border areas and the vulnerabilities which were not equal across the board? so instead of having a conversation of one of the border was secure or not, to suggest it is somehow an either /or proposition, my response would be what section of the border are you talking about? we could not -- to about zone 21 and show you all the

information and intelligence in that zone, the deployments, and then we can show you on a 24- hour cycle, the people came in and of that number, how many did we apprehend. at the broader and we can talk at the campaign level, for instance. our initiative in south texas, the campaign. you want to have in the session about what is the border security status in south texas. to me it has been more in methodology and not necessarily in metric. that is why refraining operational control, it is to be consistent with the intent and the language within the 2006 secure fence act and then talk about what it means to prevent all entries come at what level and where do we start and where do we need to end? >> i think the american people do want to have a conversation about what level the border is secure and what we are doing. there's got to be some measurable parameter. i could talk to constituents about the southern border you

can hold your people to standard of achievement. i think there are three things that come to mind. i arrests made at the border for those trying to cross illegally. apprehensions in the homeland, interior, where we identified illegals who made it through your web and they are caught and apprehended by ice maybe in another city. and maybe a standard we don't talk about is what is the amount of drugs on the street? because the illegal smuggling activity that comes into the country, we don't hear that much. we need to lessen the amount of drugs on the street. i think that is the parameter we can use to measure your performance by. with that, i yield back. >> the jenna now -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> the field hearing in laredo was very productive. chief, thank you for being here. thanks for your service. i always learn something new every time i go down there.

the task force -- they talked about in nuevo laredo, the cartel activity between the -- and zeta cartels. this was last week. predicting the violence was going to go up, that it would spike. sure enough, last friday, 23 individuals were killed in nuevo laredo, hung the -- hang over bridges and decapitated. the border is not a safe place. we need to secure the border. what keeps me up at night the most is weapons-grade uranium being smuggled from a place like iran to venezuela and then between a port of entry -- a dirty bomb in a major city. that, to me, it's terrifying. and yet it is not far-fetched. that the something that is very foreseeable. operational control of the border is important.

last time i looked it was 44 percent of the operational control. we have a new strategy that scraps operational control and now the gao has come in to testify that this new strategy does not help performance measures. i guess i am a little confused. we are not talking about operational control anymore, taking that off the table, and now the new strategy is no performance levels at all -- measures at all. how can we possibly measure whether the border is secure not? chief? >> yes, congressman. we have measures right now. we are not, again, going to dismiss all the measures or ban the metric or bend comparative statistics we have done within the organization. those continue. what we are trying to do is match those now with the strategic objectives outlined in this particular strategy. the scenario that you outlined

is one of the primary factors in our rethinking about how we applied resources to the border. in one instance, in 2004, quite frankly, it was brute force. we realized we were getting more resources, both in terms of border patrol, fences built, and technology. so the strategy was to get everything forward. we wanted to stop the flow is coming in. the scenario you depict is very akin to be able to identify a needle in the haystack, if you will. in order to extract the needle -- and i will use this as a particular threat, as you mentioned -- that i take a different general approaches to get the needle. the first is having very specific intelligence, information regarding the content and capability of the opposition, timing, to be able to surgical go to the haystack and remove it. over the last 10 years or so, that really was not applicable

in other border scenario. we were not getting that level of intelligence to be able to extract it that way. the other approach that you can do to find the needle is to reduce the haystack if you look at some of the shifts in approach between strategies, 2004 was to be able to reduce the haystack. as we have done that in terms of people coming across the border, in terms of not just the apprehensions of -- but the unique individuals that make up, the border environment has changed. what we try to do now is leverage and figure out what it is going to take and of this new strategic approach, what other metrics that will continue to carry over that we have traditionally been reporting? and additionally, what our new metrics we have not been reporting that talks to make more of the risk on the borders. it is more of a methodology that a particular metric. we want to be able to come back to committee either in an open or close hearing to be able to tell you about the information and intelligence you are

hearing, i the very tactically in a broad sense, talking about the capability cbp has to show you how we are accessing -- assessing risks and minimize. >> the one thing we learned also is the human smuggling of the port of entry has gone way down. we saw 5018 wheeler's go through the port of entry and they say they rarely find humans now in the cargo. it is mostly drugs coming through. that means they are coming through the ports of entry. while the apprehensives have gone way down, the disturbing statistic is the duty rate has gone up, the mexicans. between the port of entry is where the scenario i outlined is most likely going to happen. i do think technology is going to be the solution to get it secure. can you tell me where you are in the latest advances of his

technology, what is your strategic plan to deliver technology to the border? >> the strategic plan really talks about optimizing capability. the first time before we say we need 10 of 15 of these, is to talk about what capability, what technology has been deployed in the last few years? are we utilizing it in the right combination? example -- arizona, we have everything from unattended ground sensors, we have surveillance systems, integrated fixed towers. we have light and medium lift helicopters with infrared and uas's running payloads. that holds suite of capability is something this organization in the past few years trying to figure out how to deploy in a field of operation. they are not deployed equally because they all have different capabilities. we have to understand organizationally and the leadership how we organize those capabilities and and how we

shift and redeploy from areas that were once areas of-that in terms of activity levels and redeploy those to new areas where we have seen the displacement or new emerging threats along the border. >> thank you. you have an enormous challenge and i thank you for your service. >> i certainly want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today in your testimony. we will close the subcommittee here. but i also wanted to mention -- a follow-up of something mr. mccall brought up on operational control. i think there is a lot of consternation on behalf of the subcommittee on moving away from the term operational control. again, as i say, i think we are all totally open to using a new term if we can understand exactly what all of that is. i had a bill that actually passed the subcommittee and the full committee, and and very optimistic it will have floor action in front of the full house very shortly actually,

that is the secure border act of 2011. essentially what it requires is that the secretary of homeless security submit a comprehensive strategy to congress within 180 days to gain and maintain operational control of the border within five years. and we sort of anticipated perhaps the department moving away from the strategy of utilizing the term operational control. so, if you use any of the standard -- i see we have another member. we will indulge her in her question. but if you use any other terms and operational control, the secretary is required to vet that standard through a national laboratory which has prior expertise and border security, about a half-dozen in the nation. and the secretary would have to submit a measure of assistance to the committee within 180 days that analyzes and effectiveness of security in all the land,

air, and sea ports of entry as well. mr. mcaul talking about the ports of entry, you have to bet that to about witt appoint an entry measurements. i am looking forward to floor action on this particular legislation. i think this the to the piece, we may have success there as well. >> before you go -- >> gentleman from texas. >> i would ask, to follow on what you said, because that is correct. chief fisher and ms. gambler -- thank you for all your work. i appreciate it. one thing in texas when we went through performance measures, the agency would work with members of the state legislatures to work out definitions, performance measures and goals. i guess washington does things

in little different where you all go out -- not only you but the other agencies, the executive branch. it does not matter what the democrats or republicans. but a leader not, you got a lot of folks with experience here that can help you with some of the definitions. we may not agree 100% but anyway we can bounce it off, because the idea of the chairwoman had been a similar idea i had and some of the members here, we could work with you. washington has done a little different -- but on performance measures, objectives, goals, all that, we can help you. so anyway we can help you, chief fisher, we would appreciate, and especially gao, you all were very, very helpful and i apologize -- i was giving credit to dr. rosenblum on that, but in this report, thank you for the work you have done. >> the gentle lady from texas. then i think the committee for

holding this hearing and i think -- >> i thank the committee followed in this hearing and i thank the witnesses. there really is to have the opportunity to raise issues with you. first, chief fisher, just a straightforward question -- are you comfortable with the 2012 strategy you have put forward? >> yes, i am. >> who do you think is the most important element of that strategy? >> there is a common theme within that a strategy that i certainly see, as identified, developing, and training feature leaders of this organization. >> do you see in the estimates of strategy and undermining of the national security of the united states? >> i do not. >> do you see in a 2012 strategy undermining of the security of the northern border? >> i do not. >> the seven border? >> no, ma'am. >> let me indicate that i have, i think i have been somewhat

affiliated with the border patrol, customs and border protection, for the entire time of my career in congress, first of the judiciary committee and then subsequently as: security committee was designed -- homeland security committee was designed and as it was merged and became under that umbrella. i remember after 2000 we worked very hard to secure night goggles, laptop computers, vehicles, and other necessities that we thought were imperative for the intense work on the border of capturing those entering illegally. do you dig you have enough of those resources now, and are you able to maximize the resources to deal with the present conditions of the southern border in particular? >> to your first point, we probably don't have enough of your resources, and to the second point, i don't think we are maximizing to the extent we need to all of the capabilities,

which is a common theme in our strategy now. >> so, the strategy is going to utilize or improve on personnel, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> but also, if we were to provide you with resources, you would add to the equipment? >> that is correct. >> but you believe you have the territorial range to be your job? and at this point -- and that as part of the implementation plan. i am asking the field leaders to assess based on the new objectives. i think it is important -- i am glad you raised the point, congresswoman, because i don't want to leave the impression or in some of the reports i have seen suggest that the strategy does not require additional resources. it may. well we are doing now is taking a look at the resources we have. 1, when maximize and the capability of all of those resources and, two, do we have them in on the right locations against the emerging threats? that is a process we are looking at in the implementation and it

may be coming back to the committee and saying here is the gap -- it may be in technology, it may be another resources -- but we will continue to do it in an avolition process like any other strategy. >> we can respect report forthcoming? as you analyze you will be reporting back to thomas? >> we are in a phase right now and have been the last few months, as the teaching -- yes, ma'am question of >> you have the regional cat -- territory in the border, that is where you felt comfortable working in? >> yes. >> let me just indicate that the chief has already said he has strengthened relationships with federal, local, tribal, and international partners, which i think is good. it is part of your strategy. and i would hope as we listen to the chief going forward that we be particularly sensitive on any attempts to expand the area of

control into federal lands, 100 my opinion, without listening to the work of the border security. customs and border security and others -- protection, rather, excuse me -- that are dealing with this. i am quite concerned that we listen to the report forthcoming. i think the strategy is effective in its collapse of efforts, in its assessment efforts. i think it is important to do so and i would ask but last question to ms. gambler -- are you comfortable with the strategy in assessment and you have a sense of there is a need to expand their range in to federal lands for the customs of water protection, border patrol? >> i think your question is really getting at in part how

well border control chlorinates with other agencies that have some border security responsibilities. we've reported in the past that cbp and the department and border patrol have made progress in the courtney mechanisms and partnership but there was a need for additional oversight, including additional oversight in how the border patrol award date with agencies that do have some responsibilities for border security on federal lands. >> let me just conclude -- madame chair, thank you for the time -- and just and the gate at this point i would be quite concerned about any legislation that is countering the strategic plan and asking congress to expand the jurisdiction of the border patrol hundreds of miles inland, and particularly suggesting that they be in the federal lands at this point without a complete strategic report and analysis by dhs and

judy border bejewel and customs and border protection. i thank you very much in your back my time. >> thank you, the gentle lady. i thank all of the witnesses. it has been a very informative hearing and has been said, i think by all the members, we look forward to working with all of you -- particularly you, chief, with the unbelievable mission we have tasked your agency with, and i want to assure you do get the resources and training and availability. and we are operating in a tight budget environment here, but at the same time board of the charity -- border security is something the american people have made very clear. they have the political will to do so and still looking for the congress to do so as well. we appreciate all of you being here and all of the members for their points as a patient to die. and the hearing record will be held open for 10 days if there -- the generally be from texas? >> i would like to submit for the reston an article in "the

houston chronicle" regarding border security. >> without question. the border patrol in -- committee will stand adjourned. thank you. >> c-span's congressional directory, inside you can find contact information for each member of the house and senate as well as district maps and committee assignments. you will also learn more about members of the president's cabinet, supreme court justices,

and the nation's governors. you get a copy from $12.95 plus shipping and handling, and order online at c-span.org/shop. the house armed services committee will begin marketing3 beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. here on c-span, we will take your calls in a few minutes live on "washington journal." the u.s. house of representatives will be back in session for general speeches at 10:00 a.m. eastern with legislative business at noon. members are expected to finish work on the spending bill for departments of congress and justice and science and this -- agency. in about 45 minutes, we will be joined by republican representative tim huelskamp, a member of the budget committee. "the new york times" columnist paul krugman will take your questions about his book at