[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, a look at border and maritime security challenges with officials from the homeland security apartment, co-star, and customs and border patrol. they measure progress in the current initiatives and the impact of sequestration on the department of border patrol. this is one hour 45 minutes.

>> good morning everyone and the committee on homeland security, our subcommittee on borders and maritime security will come to order. the subcommittee is meeting today to examine our nation's border security. we have an all-star panel of witnesses here this morning. michael fisher who is the chief of the united states border patrol, kevin mcaleenan, acting assist ant commissioner in the office of field operations at customs and border protection and admiral william lee, deputy for operations, policy and capabilities at the united states coast guard. rebecca gambler, director of homeland security of government accountability and marc rosenblum from the congressional research service and i will be introducing them in a moment. but first, let me recognize myself for an opening statement and i would like to congratulate the gentlelady from

texas, ms. jackson lee for her appointment as the ranking member of this subcommittee. we have had the opportunity to already work together previously and we have had some meetings before we started scheduling some of the hearings. we are looking forward to working together to strengthen our nation's borders. and i would also like to recognize the republican members of the committee. jeff duncan from south carolina. second term. he is a veteran of this subcommittee and second term in congress as well. we are looking forward to his service on the subcommittee and in the congress and i want to congratulate him as well as being selected as the chairman of the oversight committee chairman. steve palazzo from mississippi is with us. he is a c.p.a. united states marine. veteran of the persian gulf war and still is in the army national guard in mississippi. we appreciate his service to the country and congress and looking forward and he has interest in maritime issues. and congressman barletta who is

here from pennsylvania. former business owner and entrepreneur. former mayor of hazelton and been an extremely strong voice on immigration issues. so we welcome him. and congressman stewart from utah as well, who is a world record setting air force pilot, "new york times" best selling author and has an impressive resume and will bring a unique

perspective to the committee. appreciate your service as well to the service to our nation. securing the nation and our borders, all of our borders is one of the principal responsibilities of the united states congress and one that we have under the constitution actually and since september 11, we have spent literally billions of dollars in our nation to shore up the gap in the nation's border security. unfortunately, some of the spending that was done, we think may have done been in an ad hoc way. we spent an incredible resources throwing them at problems without thinking with trying to

connect it with trying to achieve. no surprise that congress' solutions to border security, how many customs and border protection officers, how many border patrol agents that we have, hundreds of miles of fence that we have constructed, which is about 700 currently, the number of coast guard cutters, unmanned aerial vehicles, u.a.v.'s, other technologies we have sent to the borders in recent years, all of those are incredibly important, of course. but we need to continue our conversation about the conversation that we need to be having about border security and what does a secure border look like, how do we use the resources we have at our disposal to get there and what is the best way to actually measure the progress that we have had in securing our border, because it is a dynamic place, not static. once we secured one section, you know, it's not secured forever, so how we address that border should reflect that reality. today i want to pivot to a discussion away from the resources and into one that touches on outcome.

instead of discussing how we have grown the border patrol, the coast guard or the different types of technologies we have put on the board, i want to examine what the american people have gotten for the investment that we have made in that and how effective are we at stopping at the flow of illegal aliens, stopping the drugs that chiefly are coming into our country through the official ports of entry and in the maritime domain, can we interdifficult the threat of semi-submers i believes, the tango boats that are coming up the coastline of california. using this as the metric for success as the gamplet a.o. has noted is an incomplete way to look at border security. operational control, the buzz term here on the hill, maybe that is not the best way to measure border security in isolation, but the congress and the american people have been in the dark since neck napolitano has abandoned that term. when the department of homeland security stopped using the term operational control, at that time, only 873 miles of southwest border was considered control and only a few on the northern border.

they said we had about 44% of the southern border under operational control. certainly in the low single digits on the northern border. and where we are today is an open question. you have department of homeland security officials who have been telling us that a new measure called the border condition index is on its way. that is something that was told to our subcommittee and to the full committee about three years ago and we are waiting to understand what that term means and how it would work. so i think when we hear individuals saying that the border is more secure than ever, that is not a substitute for very hard verifiable facts which is again, why i want to examine the effectiveness and push for risk-based out come- oriented approach. g.a.o.'s report is the first time we have seen the examination couched in terms of effectiveness, which is a positive development, a good place to -- for us to be talking about today.

i believe that the c.b.p. and the united states coast guard should have outcome-based metrics that explains security at our maritime borders and i have been advocating the need for a comprehensive strategy to secure the borders for the last several years because i'm absolutely convinced that the department of homeland security needs to just stop the ad hoc application of resources without thinking about the big picture and i know they are in many cases, but this hearing will try to get to the nuts and bolts of how we can use the metrics to measure our success. we have to be held accountable for outcomes and can't just say the border is more secure than ever.

we have lots of agents, technology, infrastructure on the border without being able to verify from an accountability stand point how effective we have been, because the bottom line for the american people will be these simple questions, what does a secure border look like, how do we get there and how do we measure it. i look forward to hearing from the distinguished panel of witnesses today. i think this is going to be a very interesting hearing and one that can be a critical component for the entire congress as we are totally engaged as a nation in this debate now about immigration reform and again what a critical component border security is to that debate. at this time, the chair now recognizes the ranking minority member from the subcommittee, ms. jackson lee. >> i thank you, chairwoman. and i certainly adhere to the

issue of outcome. i too am pleased to acknowledge new members of our committee and welcome them as well. but let me acknowledge all of our members of our committee. representative loretta sanchez hales from a state with border and maritime interests and served as subcommittee chairwoman. i want to welcome or rourk and knows firsthand the importance of border security and knows firsthand of the enhanced safety and security they are facing and experiencing through hard work in el paso. and i welcome you. i would like to welcome representative gab on the, who comes from a district from homeland security interests. very unique and you add a very special commitment to this

committee because we need to understand both the successes and challenges of hawaii that is facing a different order of intrusion being in its location. i'm also delighted to welcome our ranking member, mr. thompson, who has had an ongoing commitment to securing the border and we worked over the years together and generated under his leadership a number of successes. before i go into my full remarks, welcome mr. cuellar who was the ranking member on this committee and worked on the g.a.o. request that many of us are reviewing and i have joined. i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, be allowed to sit and question the witnesses at today's hearing. >> without objection. and we welcome him being back with us. >> thank you very much. i want to comment on outcomes and comment on the idea of data sharing and being more cooperative with our local

officials. i think, madam chair, we can find common ground. i have understood in briefings and i indicated i would use this terminology that securing the border is not simplistic. i think it is a moving process. we, in fact, see dipt top oggray and one moment one area is secure and others are not as secure. we know cities such as san diego and el paso count themselves having made great improvement and one might use the term operational control, because there are border stations. we know there are 1,993 miles of border, 651 miles of fencing and one might make the argument that the unfenced area is less secure.

i would argue against that. one of the things that we need to ensure that we allow the border patrol to do is to advise us of how they believe using the right resources they can effectuate a secure border. but it is always moving. one of the issues that should be prominent in this such as 2004 in a member of this committee, we provided the answer to the original request by the border patrol and that is equipment. that was the year we presented all the helicopters, all of the jeeps, the lap tops, the night goggles and enhanced equipment. we know that those kinds of resources are not the only answer to border security. what i would like to see is to

match your outcomes with the use of new technology, but tamente as we move forward on technology and having the border patrol respond in a very short order of strategies that would give them what they feel is ongoing operational control, should be the moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform. i say that because, when you speak to professionals about border security, they speak less of the intrusion of masses of people as much as they talk about gun trafficking, drug trafficking. those are the criminal elements, cartels that make the border unstable. i would suggest that if you have regular order with comprehensive immigration reform you give a process of people being able to enter the country so it is more latitude for the resources that the border patrol individuals would have to be able to work on something we could rename. may not call it operational control, but enhanced border security and ongoing border security. i would also suggest as i was able to glean from some very good conversations, i would

like to see enhanced intelligence. i would like to give the border patrol the resources to identify the threat and i think they would be able to come forward and provide us with the necessary strategy going forward. again, i would offer this morning that as we proceed with this hearing, i would like to also bring into play, the coordination between local and state authorities. my state legislature just voted yesterday, madam chairwoman, to ask the federal government for reimbursement. some of those who voted for it recognize the challenges, but they have been investing a lot in border security. my point would be as i conclude is one, i would like to see

coordination between d.e.a., enhanced coordination. i thank them for a.t.f., f.b.i., border patrol, local and state and around the border patrol takes the lead on one defining what an ongoing operational control, if we don't want to use that terminology, a high level of border squret throughout our expanded area, including the northern border, including the southern board iran again to recognize comprehensive immigration reform and let me note the fine work of the coast guard in a very unique border effort that goes out deep beyond our borders and waterways, being the first line of defense for security. but finally, allowing the comprehensive immigration reform to parallel this effort of this committee and the reason being is that will give a metric, a marker on how you ought to be able to allow people in and to document those who are already within our borders. i look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses. and again i thank them for their service and i thank you for your courtesy and i yield back.

>> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. thompson. >> i like my colleague, ms. jackson lee, look forward to this hearing. some of these witnesses, i haven't seen in quite a while. good seeing you. today's subcommittee is examining the department of homeland security efforts to achieve border security. with the support of congress, d.h.s. has made better efforts to better secure our borders in recent years as already outlined by ranking member's opening statement. reasonable people may disagree about the best way to proceed from here about what having the support -- a secure border means. some believe we need extensive technology along the borders. others including me see targeted resources accompanied by a comprehensive border security strategy that ensures

we are using taxpayers' border security dollars wisely and avoiding past acquisition failures. some may believe we need to return to operational control as our metric for measuring border security. others, i clueding me, believe we need a workable set of metrics that offer an accurate assessment of our borders at and between the ports of entry. earlier this month, that had allen testified at the request of chairman mccaul and urged the committee to decide what is an acceptable level of risk at

our borders while accepting that risk will never be zero. i agree with former commandant allen and would like to insert his statement. >> without objection. >> if i could get the audio back. regardless of these differences, madam chair, i would hope we can all agree that pulling the equivalent of 5,000 border patrol agents and 2,750 c.b.p. officers from our borders as called for by the sequester is no way to achieve anyone's definition of a secure border. forcing the coast guard to curtail its operations by more than 25%, reducing essential missions including migrant and

port security operation is no way to achieve border security. reducing the number of alien immigration detention beds is no way to secure our borders. i hope we can have a frank discussion today about the challenges d.h.s. will face in securing our borders if and when sequestration takes effect. i'm plea pleased that we are joined by a witness from the government accountability office. g.a.o. has done some very important work on border security matters on behalf of this committee. this work includes the report being released today that examine crime rates on the u.s.

side of the southwest border. the report shows that in general, crime rates have fallen in border communities in recent years and in fact, mostly lower than crime rates in non-border communities within the same states. this data would appear to suggest that while border- related crime is a concern, border communities are largely safe places to live, work and do business. i hope to hear from ms. gambler in more detail about the report and what g.a.o.'s report indicates about security along

the boardsers. finally as groundwork is being done to develop comprehensive immigration reform legislation, i want to remind our members that border security is linked to immigration matters and will be an integral part of any reform proposal. as the leading committee on border security in the house, the committee on homeland security has a long and successful history of conducting oversight of the department of homeland security's efforts tom secure our nation's borders. it is imperative that this committee's expertise on border security inform any legislative proposal produced by congress to reform our immigration system. with that, madam chair, i look forward to today's hearing and i look forward to the witnesses' testimony and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. again, he we are so pleased to have the distinguished panel that we have before us. i will read your bio and then we'll start with chief fisher. michael fisher was named chief of the border patrol in 2010. he started the duty along the southwest border in 1987 in douglas, arizona and deputy patrol eight in michigan and arizona. mr. kevin mca lean and, acting assist ant commissioner where he is responsible for the anti- terrorism, immigration, trade

compliance and agricultural protection operations at the nation's 331 ports. rear admiral lee is the deputy for operations pollly and capability for the united states coast guard and in this role, he oversees integration of all policies. he spent 13 years in six different command assignments and specialized in boat operations and search and rescue. rebecca gambler, acting director of the u.s. government accountability office of homeland security and justice team where she leads the work on border security and immigration issues. and marc rosenblum is a specialist in immigration policy at the congressional research service and associate professor of political science at the university of new orleans sm the witnesses' full written

statements will appear in the record and the chair recognizes chief fisher for his testimony. >> thank you. chairwoman miller, ranking member jackson lee, ranking member thompson and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss the work that border patrol agents do every day to secure america's borders. today, my inat the present time to is offer my thoughts regarding the question and purpose of this hearing, what does a secure border look like? in short, a secure border is characterized by low risk. one in which we reduce the lickly hood of attack to the

nation and provides safety and security to the citizens against dangerous people seeking entry into the united states to do us harm. as we enter our first year of implementation, i would like to highlight how the implementation plan is developing. first and foremost, we have a definitive requirement for information and intelligence to provide greater situational awareness in each of our operational corridors. advanced information will provide us the ability to deploy and redeploy resources to areas of greatest threat. we have prioritized and

submitted our intelligence requirements and we expect collection against these requirements soon. second, we have assessed areas of high risk in certain corridors and determined appropriate staffing levels to reduce risk. we are increasing staffing levels to ensure we are placing increased capability against the greatest threat. third. we continue to refine the south texas campaign, which was the first implementation of that strategy. the lessons learned from the

past year confirm the importance of joint planning and execution with strategic objectives against common threats. central to this campaign is the importance of including all communities of interest in the process and the establishment of joinlt targeting teams. we have found that focused targeted enforcement, operational discipline and unified commands do have value. fourth, we have commenced our first area of reduction flights. the purpose of these flights is to identify remote areas along the border, areas where we have limited presence and technology and determine whether or not vullberblet exists. this will allow us to periodically check sections along the border using technology and providing broader

situational a awareness and probability of entries and adjust resources in advance of increased activity. moreover, this methodology will allow us to verify the absence of threats in particular areas, in essence, shrinking the border. in the end, the metrics and performance measures will provide us and this committee the answer to the questions, are we winning and how do we know? no longer will apprehensions loon be the measures of metric and where this makes sense, 90% effectiveness is our goal. we continue to learn the value of analyzing reside vism rates and how it reduces risk. since my last testimony in front of this testimony, i have strengthened my conviction that assessing security along the border one lynnial mile at a time is the wrong approach. first the environment in which we operate, characterized by dynamic threats operating within a corridor, does not lend itself neatly to steady, incremental metrics. second, to ask the question, is the border secure in a vacuum presupposes a definitive end state that is static, which is not. the complexity of the border says norme single measure can assess border security. a valid determination of border security can be made by analyzing all available data and placing it in the context of current intelligence and operational assessments.

accomplishing this requires a structured process and methodology to shift the discussion from the possibility of threats to one involving the probability of threats and subsequent risk mitigation strategies. although border security, staffing, detection, monitoring technology are critical in providing enhanced capability, measuring the amount of resources in a particular area does not provide an accurate security assessment. likewise, vulnerability does not simply exist in the absence of resources. vulnerability exists when corresponding capability are insufficient to define the existing threats. so what do i propose? i would envision a process by which we periodically brief this committee on current threats as assessed by the intelligence community and how we are responding to those threats and brief you on our progress. in the end we would be able to assess the state of the border from our perspective and work with stakeholders who have equity in those objectives and offer our professional judgment. i want to applaud your efforts and the members of the committee for asking the critical question, what does a secure border look like. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. the chair now recognizes mr. mcaleenan for his testimony. >> good morning, chairman miller, ranking member jackson lee and ranking member thompson. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. i appreciate the leadership to ensure the security of the

american people and having a productive discussion this morning on this important topic. the field operations carries its border security in all 50 states at 330 ports of entry and globally at 70 ports. our priority mission is preventing terrorist weapons and terrorists into the united states. at ports of entry, we dine a secure border not only by our ability to prevent dangerous people and goods from entering the country but in terms to prevent dangerous cargo. it is a well managed border where mission risks are identified and addressed and legitimate trade and travel are expedited. with this committee's report, the department of homeland security are more capable than ever before in our efforts to secure or borders but we remain continuous in our efforts to improve efforts. the process of measuring our progress is a constant focus and can be almost as complex as the mission itself. the field operations uses a different types of metrics to assess our performance in managing our security risk. these metrics are including effectiveness and set the national regional and port levels. we use these indicators to assess our trends over time. it is important to emphasize that there is no single number

or target level that can kaptur the full scope of our efforts. instead, there are series of important indicators that we use to assess and refine our operations. we begin our assessment by prioritizing the risk we face across the volume of people and goods we process in analyzing our capacity. we look at measures we have in place to address specific risks whether they are comprehensive and whether they can be improved. we use random baseline examinations of people and goods to help us assess to identify and interdict threats and we use efficiency measures to determine whether our security measures are properly targeted. we use facilitation measures such as traveler and vehicle weight times whether we are pursuing our resources in a manner that moves legitimate cross-border traffic.

while i won't be able to cover many of our results, please allow me to walk through some of the measures we are capturing. our foundational measures are the volume of people and goods we process. we welcomed 350 million travelers. and processed 25.3 million cargo containers in over 100 million cargo shipments with a value of $2.3 trillion. this is our core challenge. in our primary anti-terrorism mission, we measure our success as we identify potential risks and how early we can take action.

in the last fiscal year to through our overseas programs and coordination with interagencies, we prevented some high hisk travelers from boarding flights to the u.s. a 10-fold increase. identified and mitigated risks in over 100,000 cargo containers and air cargo shipments before they were loaded on a vessel or airplane. our ability to identify and deny people seeking admission to the united states has seen marked improvement. these technologies serve as a significant deterrent at attempt to illegal entries and use of fraudulent documents and our ports of entries have increased. we have enhanced our efforts in agriculture and trade protection to focus on those threats that present the highest risk. we are using three types of metrics. total examination and our effectiveness rate in undertaking the exams. they show positive trends.

these are a few examples and i look forward to discussing these areas. as you are well aware, we are living in a world of threats and must continue to adapt to identify and address them and increase our facilitation. chairman miller, ranking member jackson lee and members of the subcommittee thank you for this opportunity to testify. i look forward to taking your questions. >> the chair now recognizes admiral lee for five minutes of testimony. >> good morning, adam chair, ranking member jackson lee. i'm honored to be here to be here to discuss the coast guard's role as lead agency in

combating our border security threats within our country's maritime domain. the coast guard uses a layered strategy to counter the threats. this strategy starts overseas with our partner nations, our international part security program and continues into our own ports where along with our intergovernmental industry partners we escort vessels and monitor critical infrastructure and inspect facilities. offshore, our major cutter fleet along with law enforcement detachments on the united states navy and allied war ships are on patrol ready to respond to threats. coast guard aviation support the fleet providing response which optimize our overall effectiveness. last year we removed over 163

metric tons of illegal drugs before they reached our streets. last summer i testified before you on the role that the role our partners play in protecting our maritime borders closer to home. these partnerships enhance our effectiveness along our coast and waterways and outstanding example of these partnerships is the regional coordinating members of the committee im. in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, san diego and loss-long beach iner difficulted 164,000 pounds of illegal drugs along the southern california coastline. we enjoy very strong partnerships with canada and mexico. through integrated border enforcement, coast guard royal mounted police officers enjoyed success. ship rider allows the u.s. and canadian officers to conduct integrated maritime law enforcement activities. we trained and exercise together and ready to begin joint operations this spring. through our north american initiative partnerships which coordinate training with canada and mexico we have conducted 27 joint cases and removed 85,000 pounds of illegal far cannotics.

airborne use of force helicopter found a helicopter south of mexico and seized 1,800 pounds of marijuana. using standard operational procedures developed through the north american security initiatives we quickly coordinated jurisdiction with the mexican navy allowing for prosecution in the united states. these operations are not without risk however. our operating environment is challenging and traffickers can and do pose a serious threat of violence. as you may know, we recently lost a coast guardsman. we are making every effort to prevent another tragic event such as this happening. we are a member of the national intelligence community. we screen ships, crews and passengers bound for the united states by requiring them to file an advanced arrival. using our two maritime two intelligence fusion centers, we work with c.b.p.'s national targeting center to ascertain potential risk.

last year we screened more than 118,000 vessels and 29 million people. our goal is to detect, deter and interdict threats well before they pose a threat to our nation. i thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, admiral. the chair recognizes ms. gambler. >> good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to testify at today's hearing to discuss g.a.o.'s work on border security efforts and performance measurability issues. in fiscal year 2011, customs and border protection spent over $4 million to secure the u.s. southwest border. border patrol reported apprehending 327,000 illegal entrants and making over 17,000 seizures of drugs. in may 2012, the border patrol issued a new plan focused omit debating risk rather than increasing risk and the border patrol is in the process of implementing that plan. i would like to focus my remarks in two key areas.

i will highlight and review what data show about border patrol show and deployment resources. second, i will highlight g.a.o.'s work at indicators for border security. with regard to my first point, border patrol data show from fiscal year from 2006 to 2011, apprehensions declined. over that same time period, statemented known illegal entries declined. to provide an example of this, our analysis of border patrol data for the tucson sector in arizona showed from fiscal year 2006 to 2011, apprehensions declined by 68% and estimated known illegal entries declined

by 69%. border patrol attributed this to changes in the u.s. economy and increases in resources. fiscal year 2012 data reported by the border patrol indicated that apprehensions have increased from 2011 but too early to assess whether this indicates a change in trend. in addition to data on apprehension, other data collected are used to the effort. these data includersage of estimated known of illegal

entrants who are apprehended more than once and seizures of drugs and other contraband. with regard to the recidivism rate, our analysis of the data showed that the rate decreased across southwest border sectors from 2008 to 2011. with regards to drug and other contraband seizures, our analysis of border patrol data showed that they increased by 83% from fiscal year 2006 to 2011. in addition to these data, border patrol sectors tracked changes in their effectiveness as a tool to determine if the appropriate mix and placement of personnel and assets are being used effectively. border patrol data showed the effectiveness rate increased from fiscal years 2006 to 2011. now turning to the issue of performance merements. they have issued a new strategic plan to guide the effort, the agency has not developed measures for assessing the progress of its efforts and informing the identification and allocation of resources needed to secure the border. since 2011. d.h.s. has used the number of apprehensions as an interim performance goal and measure for border security. this provides useful

information but does not position the department to be able to report on how effective its efforts are at securing the border. the border patrol is developing measures although it has not yet target time frames and measures. we recommended that the border patrol establish such time frames and milestones to ensure that the development of goals and measures are completed in a timely manner. the department agreed with our recommendations and submitted its plans to develop such time frame and milestones by november of this year. indicateg, d.h.s.'s progress made to secure the border between points of entry with decrease in apprehensions. as an interim goal and measure, the number of apprehensions does not inform program results and therefore limits d.h.s. and congressional oversight and accountability. going forward, it will be

important for the border patrol and the department to continue development of goals and measures that are linked to missions and goals and produce reliable results. this concludes my oral statement. i will be pleased to answer any questions members may have. >> the chair now recognizes mr. rosenblum for his testimony. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. on behalf of the congressional research service. chairman miller's opening statement and several of the witnesses have talked about the diversity of threats and how we assess those risks. my testimony focuses on illegal migration and c.r.s. released a report last week that is about understanding the diversity of risk assessment and i have that report with me as well. focusing on illegal migration. there is broad consensus that we should secure if the southwest border but no consensus of how that means. the challenges that we know a lot about the resources we

devote to border security and c.b.p. and the rest of the d.h.s. know about the outcomes, things like apprehensions, but these data don't measure the questions we are interested in is how many enter the united states and those attempting entry, how do they apprehend. these questions sound simple, but difficult to answer for the obvious answer. the illicit nature of unauthorized migration along with the complexity of the mission and size and diversity of u.s. borders means no single indicator provide the metric or score on border enforcement. instead, we assess border security by estimating unauthorized flows and apprehension rates. so there will be some disagreement about these estimates. many people expect d.h.s. to come up with a number, but they are primarily interested in law

enforcement. for that reason, most of the data that they collect ap the date ave bases they use are designed for law enforcement purposes and not for the kind of analysis we need to assess illegal flows. my written testimony describes the different types of data that goes into estimating illegal flows and the tools we can use

to assess border security. the best rely on multiple data resources. and identifies steps to develop better border metrics. d.h.s. could include a framework like the system that o.f.o. uses within other enforcement programs. that would allow the agency to draw more clearer and accurate conclusions about underlying flows. place in historical perspective, the development of

the secure content program to conduct immigration screening of persons arrested throughout the united states seem like a particularly significant developments. i also identify areas where investments have been less robust, including investments at ports of entry, development of a complete by graphic entry-as a system, worksite enforcement to deter employers from hiring illegal workers and a way to verify worker employment eligibility. there is little doubt that inflows have fallen sharply in recent years. explaining what cost this drop- off is difficult because many new enforcement measures -- caused this drop-off is difficult because many new enforcement measures and demographic conditions in

mexico and other countries of origin. secure communities and new consequence delivery programs may not have registered in some of our data. research that disentangles these factors suggest that enforcement efforts have like to express -- explained reduced inflows. more effective border security mattress could contribute to the immigration debate by offering clear insight into the state of border security and the effectiveness of different border security strategies. these are critical issues given the trend of the congress faces between investing additional resources at the border versus in the interior of the united states, among other traces. clear border metrics may offer insights on future endorsement investments and about what level of border security can be obtained in the absence of additional immigration reforms. thank you again for the opportunity and i look forward to your questions.

>> thank you very much. i thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. i was struck as i was listening to you all. on this side of the table we have the front liners out there in each and every day doing everything you possibly can with the resources we give you to accomplish your mission and the task that you have been given and how professionally an extraordinarily well you all do that. and on this side, including all of us, i do not want to say we are bureaucrats, but we are looking for measurement systems and statistics and various kinds of things. we are not on the front lines every day. we do not see everything that you see. sometimes we forget about the loss of life. i should not say we forget. we do not think about it all the time as we are trying to measure border security and other kinds of things.

we are all on the same team. i look at a hearing like this personally as a member of congress just trying to understand how we can do with the american people want us to do, what our constitutional obligations are to secure the border. part of that, as the -- as a member of congress, is that we resources you -- that we resource you to the best of our ability. i would start a -- start with a question to miss gambler about the apprehension rate as a component of measurement. you were talking about the various numbers that indicated that the flow had significantly declined. the other report said that the

apprehension rate was basically static. it had gone from 62% to 64%. keep in mind the incredible amount of resources we have put down there. the apprehension rate is just one part of how you measure what a secure border is, what it looks like. we had 367,000 apprehensions last year. we saw 100,000 of them through. how do you explain that, even though we put all of these resources, if you try to look at it as a percentage of how we are doing, only having a 2% differential them -- differential? can you help me with that? >> looking at fiscal year fiscal year 2006 to

2011, the rates of the other southwestern sectors varied over that time. it is a high traffic sector. in terms of what that means, the apprehension rate is looking at the percentage of illegal entries and those who are apprehended or arrested by the border patrol. their ability to make those arrests could be impacted by various factors, including where the agents are deployed and the various sectors. some of those factors explain differences in the rates across the sectors. >> ok. i appreciate that. chief, talking about the at re- integrate, you mentioned that maybe it is not the best way, but it is one way we measure border security.

maybe we should you something other than apprehension. i would like you to expand on your goal. you talked about 90%. what does april a secure border look like? 90% -- what does a secure borders look-alike? 9 2% is a good goal. nobody can get to -- 19% -- 90% is a good goal. would you look at 90% across all of our borders or are you thinking about particular sectors? could you flex -- flesh that out a bit for me? >> 90% would not make sense everywhere. let me give you a particular area of the border and you could pick a particular spot.

we have technology that is out there. on average, there would only be four people coming across. if over a period of time we were catching three out of four and 90% was the standard, it would not make sense to put more and more resources over there to arbitrarily get to 90%. i qualify it as areas of significant legal activity as a goal. if we start differentiating areas where we have less activity versus more activity, we want to make sure we are applying those resources into those areas of high activity, which gives us a higher risk area. theoretically, we want to be able to move those resources over there, optimize the capability in terms of people and our patrol agents out there, make sure detection capability is out there in the right locations, and to be able to

achieve 90%. you are absolutely right, madam chair. they are in the smuggling business to make money. when we start to apply our resources and we are starting to impact their ability to do that and their profit margin, we might start off by apprehending 40% of their commodity whether it is people or narcotics. as we start applying resources over time, we start incrementally increasing the effectiveness. we are apprehending a higher proportion of those things they are smuggling. as we reach 50% or 60%, the smuggling organization is no longer able to make money and they will displace to other areas along the border or change their techniques and procedures. there are sections along the border where we not only have been able to achieve, but sustain 90% effectiveness. i would not arbitrarily say 90%

is across the board. there are other locations where there is a lot less activity and there will not be a lot of activity because of terrain features. it makes sense that we want to go ahead and parts that out along those corridors along those pacific -- parse that out along those corridors along those pacific -- specific sectors. >> thank you. we have a hard stop time at noon. with that, i will recognize our ranking member. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent that my entire opening statement will be put in the record. >> without objection. >> i would ask unanimous consent that the documents i have here, a statement written by the aclu on what a border that is secure looks like we submitted into the record. >> without objection. cooks and a statement looking on

past benchmarks -- >> and a statement looking at past benchmarks be put into the record. >> without objection. >> miss gambler, if you had to grade the level of security that we have right now based upon the view that gao made, what grade would you give it? >> it is difficult to assign a great because the border patrol has not established goals and measures for defining borders security between ports of entry and how they would assess progress toward that goal. >> what grade would you give them? >> again, it is important for the department to set a goal for how secure -- >> i would rather you get at what grade he would give them.

>> it is really contingent on the department to set their goals and measured four how secure the border is. >> in the view of gao, what grade would you give them? >> it is hard to quantify a specific grade. i think it is important for them to look at -- >> would you give them an a, a b, a c. ? >> i think they are making progress toward securing the border. their effectiveness rates, as they look at it on a sector by sector basis, has improved over time per sector. they are making progress. >> with that the aim b or a b +? it would be how you would think about grading them. they have made progress toward securing the border. >> i think gao can do a better

job with providing a more certain answer. i appreciate that you are not giving me an answer. i will give you enough time to think and see what kind of grade you will give to them. >> you mentioned an important point about intelligence gathering. can you expand on that in terms of the focus of intelligence gathering and you need more resources for that? >> thank you. absolutely both in terms of intelligence and brought information. it is the first pillar in our strategy. unlike the ports of entry is, for interest -- and the ports of entry, for instance, we do not have any confidence information

on what kind of people are coming through. our ability to understand the environment in which we operate, intelligence provides us that. information from the community provides that, as well. the more information we know about the environment in which we operate the more information we know about the intent and capability of those , which gives us a better tactical advantage to ensure that we are protecting this country from future attacks. >> i am going ask both you and the admiral -- we are looking at possible sequester on this coming friday. what would be the impact if this occurred this coming friday with respect to services and the border patrol in terms of numbers and the services by

border protection. that is mr. mcaleenan. >> the border patrol will have reduced capability. we will prioritize and accomplish the mission as we normally would do. there are prioritization said we would look at in terms of deployment of resources to border patrol agents. it will have an impact in terms of reduced capability. >> admiral? >> as the secretary has testified it will be a two of its 75 officer cut, about 12.5% of our staff. points of entry would have significant impact on the time and our ability to move people.

>> the coast guard will also have a reduction in operations but we are going to preserve our operations -- preserve our capability to respond. >> thank you. >> we will have the ability for a second round of questions later. i recognize the ranking minority member. >> thank you very much. a number of us for quite awhile have been trying to get a comprehensive border strategy. we tried to encourage the department to come up with it. chief, can you tell us where we are all along this development of a strategy for the border to secure it? >> yes, sir. first and foremost a couple of years ago when we began looking at our strategy we began first

and foremost with the quadrennial home and security review. the department of, securities submitted their strategy for 2012 to 2016. we did ours in conjunction with that. if you look at the chain from the department down through cdp standpoints, the things we are attempting to do is in line with the secretary's priorities. >> have we put that strategy in writing so that members of congress and others might know what it is? >> yes, sir. our strategy was published last spring and it is in writing and certainly available for your review.

>> tied to the strategy of the border control index, where might that be? >> that is still under development. it is getting some peer review. it is not ready for full deployment at this time. >> is it your opinion that border control index would be something positive for the security of the border? >> i think any additional layer, when you looked at answering this question to the extent on which this border is executors -- this order is a cure -- this border is secure, anything the department would put forward would be another layer to check the things that we think are important to evaluate. >> did you look at any of this in your review? >> during the course of our review we did not specifically looked at the border condition

index. we understand that is in development within the department. we didn't get some of the other mets -- the other metrics in terms of the effectiveness rate and other rates. he mentioned looking at the percentage of estimated known legal entrance. we have looked at some of the data that has been mentioned but not specifically the porter commission. >> let me thank all of you in law enforcement. you do a wonderful job. the statistics bear out the fact that if you have the resources you can do a better job. no question about that. one of the things i think you are facing now is with the expectation of a reduction, that puts each one of you in a position of prioritizing.

admiral, you talked about search and rescue as being a priority versus other things. if you are trying to find a secure border -- trying to define a secure border, some things will not to be attention that it would get if you had the resources. am i correct? >> yes, sir. bottom line is when we have to take a corresponding cut in operations we are taking people and assets offline. >> i would like to get on the record to say that a lot of what we do focuses the southwest

border but we do have a maritime borders, we have a northern border. all of this is the framework of the border security and i would hope that as we continue to review this policy we make sure it is inclusive of all of the borders that we operate to try to secure it, not just focus on the southwest border. >> i appreciate the comments about all of the borders. we have all of these borders. at this time the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> let me start off by saying i think americans are receiving mixed signals when it comes to border security and immigration. i will point to an ap story on

february 4 that says -- that has secretary in the public, saying "i am -- we go back to the whole idea that in 2010 at the paula todd stopped reporting the number of miles of the border was under control. he used the term " the archaic." d. h. s. is developing a commission index, which i like to hear more about. this has not been released. the congress and public are sort of in the dark when it comes to the true numbers and true effectiveness. that necessitates the hearing we have today. i went down to the border back in the fall and i had a conversation with the congressman of arizona earlier this month. weaver talking about border

security and he said until ranchers in arizona feel safe enough to leave their home and children at whatever ages at the ranch to go into town to buy milk and come back, the border is not secure. that was an interesting analogy he made. for ranchers to not feel safe enough to run to 711 and grabbed a gallon of milk for their kids without gathering everybody up and taking them with them because their home and farm and property is not secure from illegals coming across for whatever reason. that is an interesting thing to talk about. real quickly, i was in texas recently and a gentleman i was talking with was telling me that he helped cbp. he was talking about other mexican groups we catch coming across.

do we have any percentages of what other groups, he was saying chinese and even south americans and south africans coming across. you have any sort of percentage other than mexicans that come across? >> in 2012, for instance, over 350,000 apprehensions along the southern border. that represented individuals that were arrested from hundred 42 different countries. -- from 142 different countries. in terms of those that are from the country of guatemala, about three years ago one of every three individuals apprehended in south texas came from guatemala. today it is 60%. we are seeing a shift in terms of those individuals seeking entry in the united states between the ports of entry and places like south texas where

the majority of those individuals are not from mexico, they are from countries other than mexicod. >> guatemala shares a border with mexico so i can understand the ease of the guatemalans coming. i want to shift gears a little bit because there is concern over drone use over the homeland. and how effective has been drawn birds -- the drug used in surveying the border? >> burial systems for the border patrol has been invaluable in providing that level of information along the border on a longer and steady system to be able to q border patrol agents on people seeking to gain entry to the united states. >> how you see the drone use in helping your job at the bank of stacks -- at the pegasus?

>> read to know where to put our resources. >> have a lot of square miles to cover. >> millions. >> as far as the responsiveness, let us focus on a certain sector where we increased activity during the night, i know those drugs aren't flown locally, how easy is it to coordinate that movement? >> cbp is getting better. i can tell you that the certificates of authorization we have across the border. we have the authorization to get that airspace. cbp is getting better at launch and recover from one location and doing flights to another location. >> thank you for your service to our country.

>> the chair now recognizes mr. o'rourke from texas. >> i would ask for unanimous consent to submit the statement from the national treasury employees union and a statement by to the record. >> without objection. >> i would like to thank ranking member jackson lee for assembling this panel and holding this hearing on what a secure border looks like. it is perhaps one of the more important questions for our country to answer. the fate of 12 million people in the united states right now and the future of comprehensive immigration reform depend on the answer to this question. texas, the safest city in the united states is heavily dependent on cross border trade

and legitimate secure flow at ports of entry. the people who work in my city and the people i represent depend on the answer to this question. i would argue that the fate of our country -- we have more than 6 million people whose jobs are directly dependent on the secure flow trade. we trade more than $450 billion a year with the country of mexico. if we want to see economic growth in this country than the fate of our country depends on how we answer this question. not to mention the billions of dollars we spent right now to secure the border as archer rowland has pointed out -- as ever chairwoman has pointed out. -- as our chairwoman has pointed out. although we are unable to define what a secure border is -- i was hoping that chief fisher and commissioner mcaleenan -- if

you look at the border on hold all the way to san diego and comparing to the rest of the u.s., we are safest in the country. the rancher getting his milk in arizona is far safer than a single mom leaving her department in washington d.c. -- leaving her apartment in washington d.c.. are we a safe and secure as we have ever been? >> i believe in many sections along the border i can compare to when i came into border patrol in 1987. because of this committee's support we have received unprecedented resources. there are sections along the

border that are secure because of that. >> i would agree with our technology deployment and operational improvements. almost every person across the border are significantly more secure with ended missiles -- with inadmissible said. >> we are more secure in all of those areas than we have ever been? >> that is correct. >> that is important for us to know. i share this committee's frustration with the fact that we do not have a defined goals and measurements on which to chart our progress against that goal. we are no longer using operational control. we have not released the new comprehensive index.

i think it is really important for this panel and country to know that the border is as secure as it has ever been. an additional question for you, commissioner. well al's is the safest city in america, if you want to know what a secure border looks like then look at all passel texas. -- look at el paso, texas. one of the things that as a threat to our economy is a slow pace of cross border traffic. i am sure the congressman can attest to this, she persuaded nine hours to get into the united states. there are some basic issues of

being humane to the people crossing. when i crossed this week, cp agents knew i was coming over. if we can get me across in 10 minutes what can we get everyone across in 10 minutes? >> as i mentioned, are waiting times and service times are a huge focus. we made significant effors in el paso, increasing our booth time by 14%. that has resulted in reduced wait times. traffic is up in every category over the last 3 years. we are using our new technology try to get people into the rfid enabled lanes.

the wait times are down significantly. we are staffing the booths at peak times more efficiently. it is making a difference. we need to move that increasing trade and travel even more efficiently this year. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i come from a much different perspective, being a former mayor of a city that is 2000 miles away from the nearest southern border. i was the first mayor in the country to pass a law dealing with illegal immigration. over 10% it was estimated at a time and my city was -- at the time that my city was in the country illegally.

our population grew by 50% of our tax revenue stayed the same. i see this from a different prism as many others. there is an economic side to this as well as a national security side. my first disagreement is how do we even define our borders? i believe there is an important piece to this issue that is missing. any state that has an international airport is a "border state." 40% of the people int he the country illegally did not cross a border. we have immigration laws for two reasons, to protect american jobs and protect american

people. my question is do you believe adding more people on the border would have stopped the attacks on 9/11. >> no, sir. >> if i were a "could-be" terrorist and i flew into des moines, iowa airport and to not leave after my visa expired how would you find me? >> we are assuming this individual is not known to the intelligence community? >> that is correct. >> first of all we would use the biographical information transmitted to cbp, called the advance passenger administration system. we would work with u.s > visit and immigration and customs.

>> how would we have 40% of the people in the country illegally whose visas have expired? >> this is an area we have acknowledged where we need to improve. >> that is my point. some of the 9/11 terrorists overstayed their visas. granted amnesty in 1986. he was one of the masterminds to that. now there is a new proposal to grant the pathway to citizenship to millions to cross the border illegally or who have overstayed a visa. i believe that this will only encourage millions more to come here through our open borders. basically what this proposal is telling anyone that is here on

of these the right now is that you can throw your feet away because this proposal will allow you to stay. we needed make sure we are doing the first things first, securing our borders. that is not only airports, seaports, northern borders, east coast, west coast. we cannot exclude those that come here through illegal past ways -- through legal pathways and stay here and become illegal. that is what is missing here today. we should not use immigration laws to battle for new voters. today is the 20th anniversary of the 1993 attack at the world trade center. a thousand people were injured. our immigration laws are here to protect american jobs and protect the american people. we are a long way from secure borders. it should be reminded to everyone here at congress that

we only replace the carpets in our homes when we still have a hole in our roof. >> the chairman recognizes the lady from hawaii, ms. gabbard. >> as the ranking member mentioned, i am going to take the conversation in a different direction. as all of you know we face unique challenges in hawaii that are very different than the issues that have been brought up this morning. they are issues that not only affect hawaii. as you know what is happening in asia and across the pacific, hawaii's strategic location is a gateway to what is happening in our country my first question is for admiral lee.

you don't get too much into the details about what is happening in the pacific and the kinds of partnerships you have there. especially considering within the 14th district, folks i have visited with, they cover not only the crimes of hawaii but qualm, cyan, even singapore and japan. we like to talk about more about the partnerships you have there. and how we can make sure we are maintaining coverage in that region. >> yes, ma'am. and, for the question tweet we have been extending -- we have an outstanding -- we have an outstanding relationship. we are watching as the nation

develops and unfolds in the pacific arena. we are watching what is happening between the japanese and chinese. we are watching what is happening between fisher ies. our force is standing ready to respond as the nation needs it to. that is a large body of water that requires resources to patrol and maintain. >> can you talk a little more about what kinds of impacts you forsee should be sequestered occur on march 1 within the pacific region? >> we don't have any more or less cuts than anywhere else.

the guiding principle was preserve our capability to respond to search and rescue and to meet security demands. there was no more specificity than that. secretary napo tunnel stated yesterday that the operational laydown could be as much as 25%. again, preserving our ability to respond should the situation dictates. >> is obviously an issue of concern for us as we look forward to kind of keeping a close eye on this as it develops. i want to commend your folks on the ground who, as i have seen, are creating these great partnerships that allow for

sharing of resources in ways that may not normally occur. great job with the folks on the ground. for mr. mcaleenan, with your office been responsible for customs and agricultural inspection, specifically -- i have met with some of the folks on the ground crew are concerned about continued shortages and manpower and labor. what does that do to affect us as an island state and economy in particular, we are often threatened by invasive species. they could continue to destroy our environment.

i am wondering how you foresee, as you are prioritizing your risks, the big picture of effecting economies like hawaii who are these major through points for these agricultural inspections? >> being originally from hawaii i am keenly aware of the importance of the fragile ecosystem on the islands. with the sequestration cuts we are still good to be doing all mandatory agricultural exams. these are required under statute and regulation that is run by the department of agriculture. the highest priority is to continue during sequestration. we are going to have to ask people to staff the primary boots. we will see increased weight tons at the airport. that could be up to 50% with

peaked at increasing significantly. that is a concern. a lot of people want to say in hawaii when it gets there. -- stay in hawaii when they get there. >> thank you, i did not know you were a local boy. what kinds of technology are you t? your team looking a i can stop there. >> at this time the chair would recognize mr. cuellar. >> thank you for letting me be here. we as the country -- one of the most important things we need to do is secure the border. for those of us here in texas, we understand that in areas --

securing the border has always been and

1 mile of technology will cost about million dollars per mile. we have to be smart about how secure the border. you are right. 40 percent of those individuals across the river came in through illegal permits.

we have to be smart on how we do it. when we spend billions of dollars we have to understand -- we need to get the best bang for the dollars. we have been struggling on how we measure the results for those billions of dollars. how we measure what we are doing. a lot of times it has been us immerses you. i appreciate all of the work you are doing. as mr. thompson said, a lot of times we as the oversight individuals are not given information until later. the porter commission index, i have not seen it. i have not seen who is putting it together. i was given the same answer that you all are working on it. we do not know who is putting the information together.

the folks that live on the border, we have our families there. we have our businesses there. we have everything there. we want to know what performance measures are being used to measure the border. i had mike mccall stay at my house. he was happy there. we walked around with secure guards. everyone has a perception about what border security is. we need your help so we can all agree what a secure border is. i am one of those who feel that the border is secure. do we need to do more? yes, we need to do more. this is why we asked the gao to do this comprehensively. we had 200 individuals that were

paid to come up with this report, it was called up report of water stone the murder rate is higher here than other areas. democrats are going to say it is not going to be. hopefully we can get your help and given that information we can all come down to the same measurements. before my time is over i have to ask you who is involved in the border commission index? what consultants were involved in this? >> i am not aware of which consultants. i think we did no word of any consultants. >> in the interest of time we

have a hard deadline of noon or before. it sounds like some of the members may have some follow- ups. we will go to it two minutes for questions. >> thank you very much. let me just say that i will quickly make these points. i think the violence focuses more on drug cartels and drug trafficking and various guns. i am going to ask some rapid- fire questions. chief fisher, i would like to know your explanation as to operation -- as to why operation control might not be the best. and i would like my friend from the gao to assess how she

believes the cbp is responding to the recommendations. i empathize with my friends from pennsylvania having been here during 9/11. overstay can be handled through comprehensive reform. for texas, i want to help ranchers and farmers. i hope the chief will listen. that is why i asked about the question of operational control. move patrol agents to these areas. if you can do so -- >> first question, in terms of operational control -- three years ago i came out the he mentally against operational control.

-- vehemently against operational control. we deploy resources and measure that in a linear fashion. i did not think it was synonymous with security given the context it was being used outside of the organization. i wanted to be clear on that. i think the direction of this community gets back on track in terms of what it is we are looking to measure. one of the challenges we have in moving -- rapid response. when we have the intelligence and have to move border patrol agents -- some of the challenges include three things. one, when it comes to the negotiating agreement with the union there are some