Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing Examines Border Security Technology 20170829

Testify about technologies theyre using to secure the nations borders, including efforts to combat drug smuggling. The committee on Homeland Security subcommittee on border and Maritime Security will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to examine the role of technology in the nations Border Security efforts. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Border security is a complicated endeavor, because theres no one size fits all solution. Thinking through what it will take to secure the border is the primary responsibility of the three agencies represented by our witnesses today. Border patrol is our Operational Force between the ports of industry, cbps office of Field Operations job is to facilitate legitimate trade and travel while keeping illicit drugs from entering, air and marine is the supporting element. All three of these critical Border Security components rely heavily on technology to accomplish their mission. Indeed, technology is a Crucial Force multiplier and part of a multilayeredded approach of the right mix of infrastructure, personnel and technology that weve used for at least 20 years now. Instead of focusing solely on the gadgets and the gizmos and the many repeated failures weve had in the procurement process, i think its important to think strategically about the decision plaintiff making process decisionmaking process. Disrupting that process by leveraging technology will help customs and Border Protection better use the allocated funding to secure the border in the long term. So today want to take a hard look at the role that technology plays in helping to predict, deter, detect and, finally, interdict the Illicit Activity so prevalent along the southwest border. Deterrence is the ideal goal of the nations Border Security effort yet is difficult to measure or accomplish. Discouraging bad actors is our best defense. Robust individuals may decide its not worth the risk to smuggle drugs through a busy port of entry. Essentially, deterrence is predicated on two thicks; first, the perception that illegal smuggling is a costly endeavor and, second, that the likelihood of success is low. But if we cannot successfully deter illegal behavior by communicating the message that the border is an inhospitable place, then we have to shift to detection, surveillance and interdiction. That is where the role of Technology Becomes indispensable, because of the rugged and remote nature of many parts of the border. Terrain and infrastructure on both sides of the border and cbps Security Posture in any given area should inform the tools we useo detect, monitor and surveil the border. On a consistent basis, these tools are critical for what is commonly referred to as Situational Awarenesses or s. A. , a basic requirement if the goal is to gain then operational control of the souther border. Cameras, night vision devices, motion senso, devices and other surveillance elentment have become essential of our border curi operations. These technologies have enhanced agent and officer safety, provided constant monitoring of difficult to access areas and enhance agent and officer abilities to interdirect the criminal activity. Aviation assets equipped with advanced radar capabilities have also refined our understanding of significant threat that exists along the border and have helped to reposition and redeploy asset as flows and vulnerability shift. Understand that Border Patrol, cbp, area and marine continue to activate [inaudible] that have the potential to revolutionize at the field agent level. I look forward to the progress update on the Funds Congress has provided for this particular effort. A secure border is the outcome the American People demand. With this in mind, congress has repeatedly asked one consequential question what will it take to gain this situational a awareness and operational control of the southwest border . Up until now the answers have been limited or unsupported by a requirement process similar to that of defense department. In short, theyve been insufficient. At best, theyve been best guess es. Congress supports you to be able to quickly identify and justify the technological needs required to secure the border. So far the Border Patrol and air and Marine Operations have been involved in a capability gap analysis process. Cgap is a scenariobased exercise designed to ferret out tactical weaknesseses and hopefully inform the technological budget process. Putting more technology on the border will increase our chances of apprehending dangerous individuals and interdicting lethal drugs like heroin and fentanyl that cause so much death and pain for our fellow american citizens. Thanks for being here to discuss the many ways in which we can use technology to secure our nations border, and i look forward to the witnesses testimony. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the substitute Ranking Member, the gentleman from california, for an opening statement. Thank you, madam chairwoman. Im pleased to join you for todays hearing examining u. S. Customs and Border Protections efforts to enhance Border Security with the use of technology. Ranking member [inaudible] cant join us today due to some other commitments, is so im happy to step in in his stead. Over the past several years, weve seen Technology Used to improve situational a awarenesses, enhance security and to improve legitimate commerce across our borders. While secretary kelly and many lawmakers in Congress Talk about the value of technology to better secure our borders, we remain concerned that we are not utilizing technology to its fullest benefits. We know the new Trump Administration is prioritized physical barriers over technology to secure the border. President trump ran for office with the promise to build a wall to stop undocumented immigrants and to curb drug smuggling. While experts before this committee have told us that a border wall will not accomplish either one of these goals, earlier this month the Appropriations Committee approved 1. 6 billion for the construction i should say continued construction of that border wall. While we allocate billions in a border wall that may not work, im hearing stories of many of our Border Agents not being anal to talk to each other able to talk to each other using their existing equipment. Ive heard some of these folks tell me that they can see each other 2300 yards away, yet they cant use some of their walkietalkies, and to me, that is sad testament to the situation that we have with reference to existing technology. With limited resources for technology on border, its important that customs and border get it right when it comes to procuring, testing and deploying technology along the border. The department of Homeland Security has for years attempted to deploy various kinds of technology to the borders with mixed results at best. Identifying, acquiring and deploying the right mix of Border Security technology isnt easy, but weve got to get it right. A million here, a million there translates to a billion here and a billion there, and those dollars we can only spend once. Those are very precious taxpayer dollars. And we know that the Border Crossers and illicit traffic changes from daytoday, and our technology and our tactics need to evolve along with those changes. This is another reason, a primary reason why a border wall, in my opinion, is not a solution to our Border Security challenges. And remember, we have two borders, and we have two oceans. Americans borders are varied as well with different geography, terrain and climate. Given dhs poor track record and seeming hi unending seemingly unending shift to physical barriers of technology, i remain concerned about our Border Security and Technology Deployment. Id like to hear today cbp justify why wholesale physical infrastructure plan would be more effective than deploying strategic technological assets along the border. And as secretary kelly has said here numerous times, the border rather, we need a multilayered defense system. I also hope the hear from our gao witness today about their examination of cbps metrics to measure the performance of border technologies and whether dhs procurement and Acquisition Management processes are sound or still need to be improved. Also in light of the massive Acquisition Management resources that would be needed on dedicated to constructing physical wall, id like to know how cbp will manage existing Technology Contracts as it shifts to focus on personnel to man the new wall. Finally, i hope we can have a frank discussion with our witnesses about how cbp can best position itself ongoing Border Security Technology Programs for success in this environment of scarce resources. I thank the witnesses for joining us here today, and i yield back my time, mad a dam chair. Madam chair. Other members of the committee are reminded that Opening Statements may be submitted for the record. Were pleased to be joined by four distinguished witnesses, mr. Todd owens is executive assistant commissioner for the office of Field Operations. Prior to becoming executive assistant commissioner, he served in various roles within cbp and most recently as director of Field Operations at the los angeles field office. Mr. Scott luck began his career with the Border Patrol in 1986 and currently serves as acting deputy chief of the u. S. Border patrol. Prior to becoming acting deputy chief, he was the chief of operations divisions for the u. S. Border patrol. Dennis michelini is acting executive director for u. S. Customs and Border Protections air and Marine Operations. He began his career in 1995 where he served as an act and a an agent and a pilot. Prior to becoming executive of operations, he served as director of the Northern Region and director of air operations strategy. And ms. Rebecca gambler is director in the government accountable office, Homeland Security and justice team where she leads work on the department of Homeland Securitys management and transformation. The witnesses full written statement will appear in the record. The chair recognizes mr. Owens for five minutes to testify. Good morning, chairwoman mcsally, esteemed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify alongside my colleagues from the u. S. Border patrol and air and Marine Operations to discuss the role of cbps office of Field Operations in detecting and interdicting Illegal Drugs and other dangerous materials at our ports of industry. Before my appointment as the executive assistant commissioner of cbps office of Field Operations in february of 2015, i served in several relevant roles within cbp, most recently as director of Field Operations for the Greater Los Angeles area and previously as the executive director over all of the cargo security programs. I know firsthand how valuable technology is to detect materials that potentially pose a threat to the United States. Used in conjunction with cbps riskbasedded targeting capabilities and security partnerships, advanced Detection Technology at our ports of entry is an essential component in our mission to interception Illegal Drugs and other dangerous materials before they cross our borders. Smugglers use a wide variety of tactics and techniques for concealing drugs and other contraband through the ports of entry. Officers regularly find drugs concealed on individual, hidden inside vehicle seat cushions, gas tanks, dashboards and tires, within packaged food, Household Goods and hygiene products, in checked luggage and in Construction Materials transported on commercial trucks. This past weekend cbp officers in laredo so discovered and seid 147 pounds of cocaine hidden in the gas tank of a bus. All three females had entered i there the pedestrian planes, and yesterday in pedestrian lanes. Yesterday officers these are but three reallife examples of the threats that cbp officers address every day. To counter the full range our nations land, sea and ports of entry including large scale dam ma ray gamma ray systems. These technological systems enable cbp officers to see containers, commercial trucks and privatelyowned vehicles for the presence of contraband without physically opening or unloading them. 100 of all trucks and personally owned vehicles arriving from canada and mexico and nearly 100 of all arriving maritime containerized cargo for the presence of radiological or nuclear materials. In conjunction with cbps many other initiatives advancements in cargo, conveyance and vehicle Screening Technology significantly increases cbps ability to detect and interdict Illegal Drugs, radiological weapons and other dangerous materials and continues to be a cornerstone of cbps multilayered Border Security strategy. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and im happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. The chair recognizes mr. Locke for five minutes to testify. Can you make sure your microphone is on . Chairwoman mcsally, Ranking Member correa, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the men and women of the u. S. Border patrol to discuss our use of technology to secure the border. Our Border Patrol operations along the southwest border are continuously challenged by evolving tactics and transitional criminal organizations and individuals. The board of which will use sophisticated technology, a critical element in our layer to border strategy to enhance our Situational Awareness and to detect changes in threat levels in criminal flows across the border. Thanks to the sport of the subcommittee cbp continues to deploy Capable Technology resources to increase our ability to detect illegal activity along the southwest border and our ability to more efficiently, effectively and safely respond as appropriate to potential threats. With enhanced detections and surveillance capabilities Border Patrol agents can improve their Situational Awareness remotely. Director agent to the best location and warn of any other additional danger otherwise unknown along the way. As the result these investment increase of Border Patrols visibility on the border. Operational capabilities and the safety of our Frontline Law enforcement personnel. As many on the subcommittee know, the terrain along the border between the United States and mexico is extremely diverse consisting of deserts, mountains and urban areas. Tailored to address areas of risk and if i mental challenges, cbp deploys accommodation of combination of Six Technology assets with short, medium and long range persistent surveillance capabilities to maintain Situational Awareness of the bearing border environment. For example, integrated fixed hours deployed along the border in arizona providing longrange persistent surveillance. These tower systems automatically detect and track items of interest and provide centralized operators with a a video and geospatial location of suspected items of interest for identification and appropriate action. Remote Video Surveillance systems are another Fix Technology as that used by the u. S. Border patrol to provide persistent surveillance in select areas along the southwest and northern borders. These systems which use cameras, radio and microwave transmitters to send data to a control room enable the Border Patrol to remotely detect, identify, classified and track targets effectively. Mobile technology mounted on vehicles are carried by agent is used in conjunction with fixed assets and provides a Border Patrol flexibility and agility to adapt to the changing border conditions and threats. Tactical aerostats and relocatable towers acquired as part of the department of defense Reuse Program have also proven to be a vital asset in increasing cbp Situational Awareness and our ability to detect, identify and track illegal crossborder activity. Mobile Surveillance Technology systems enable Border Patrol agents to position the technology where it is needed at a specific moment, extender observational capabilities and increase the accuracy and speed of our response. In addition to use Surveillance Technology, collaboration and information sharing with our Law Enforcement partners is a key component of building Situational Awareness and response capabilities along our southwest border. We were close with our cbp partners especially air and Marine Operations as well as multiple dhs, federal, international, state, tribal and local Law Enforcement agencies. Technology is critical to the Border Patrols or security operation. A tailored to plan a fixed mobile and portable Surveillance Systems that complement one another and work in conjunction with other elements of our operations including intelligence, partnerships and tactical infrastructure increases the Border Patrols effectiveness in addressing high risk and seasonal or periodic traffic patterns and enables Rapid Response strategy to maximize limited manpower. Chairwoman mcsally, Ranking Member, distinguished member of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. In closing i would like to thank the men and women of the United States Border Patrol for the hard work and dedication to duty who unselfishly protect our nation. 4 hours a day 365 days a year. Id afforded to answering questions. Thank you, mr. Look. I think i pronounce your name long, mr. Michelini. Thats correct. Mr. Michelini. The chair now recognize mr. Michelini for five minutes. Good morning chairwoman mcsally, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the Technology Used by cbp, air and Marine Operations in securing our nations borders. A critical couple of cbps Border Security Mission Secures the United States from transnational threats including terrorism, weapons and drug smuggling and other illicit activities throughout our four core competencies, interdiction, investigations, domain awareness, a contingency to national tasks. Throughout my 222 years in Law Enforcement first at the Border Patrol agent and then as an air interdiction pilot i have personally witnessed a significant increase in the development and deployment of technology to aid in the security of our borders. The result of which house without doubt improved our efficiency and effectiveness in fulfilling our Law Enforcement mission. Throughout the use of coordinated and integrated surveillance capabilities including aviation, marine, tethered aerostat and integrated groundbased sensors, we detect, prevents the unlawful movement of people, Illegal Drugs and other contraband toward or acros the borders of the United States. Our Technology Assets provide multidomain awareness for our partners across cbp and the department of Homeland Security. As well as critical error you and Maritime Surveillance interdiction and operational assistance to our ground personnel. Our surveillance capabilities are enhanced the recent investments and appointments to fixed wing, rotary and Unmanned Aircraft. These assets are equipped with a range of advanced Sensor Systems tailored to specific operational environment and provide critical detection, interdiction capability. Sophisticated sensors and high endurance area capabilities greatly increased our effectiveness in countering illicit crossborder activity. Amo operates air and Marine Operations center which is a state of the art Law Enforcement domain awareness center. We use advanced Surveillance Systems and intelligence databases to detect threats to homeland and coordinate their interdiction. Amo combats airborne and maritime smuggling with an integrated longrange radar architecture comprised of groundbased radars and elevated radars deployed. Across our entire program, amo contributed more than 4300 arrests, 55,000 apprehensions, and the interdiction nearly 200,000 pounds of cocaine in fiscal year 16. A emboldens its capability to a variety of federal partners including the u. S. Coast guard and the United States navy. By conducting counternarcotics operations in the southeast coastal and source and transit zones. We are the leading provider of airborne detection and monitoring to the joint Interagency Task force south. We provide direct assistance to partner nations with a shared interest in Border Security, most notably mexico and canada. Moving forward we will continue to work with our cbp and other partners to enhance our detection, investigation and interdiction capabilities to address emerging threats and to protect americas security interest among the nations border in source and transit zones in her own customs waters and with the nations interview. Chairwoman mcsally, Ranking Member vela, mr. Correa, and distinguished members, thank you for this opportunity to testify today and i look forward to answering your questions. The chair now recognizes this gambler. Good morning, chairwoman mcsally, Ranking Member vela, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at todays hearing to discuss gaos work on dhs efforts to acquire and apply various technologies along the u. S. Borders. Dhss and put up right of assets in its efforts to secure the southwest border including various landbased surveillance technologies. Gao has report on dhs management and oversight of the surveillance technologies under the former secure border initiative, and the departments more recent plans. My remarks will some rights in the gaos pass reports as well as some preliminary observations from our ongoing work for the subcommittee on cbps varies surveillance technologies. More specifically cbp has made progress in deploying technologies along the southwest border. This includes fixed and mobile Surveillance Systems, agent portable devices, and ground sensors. These technologies have aided cbps Border Security efforts here as of july 2017 cbp is completed deployment of selected technologies to areas in arizona, texas and california. For example, cbp has reported deploying all planned remote Video Surveillance systems and mobile surveillance capability systems to arizona cbp has also reported deploying 1 1553 plant integrated fixed hours or isps to arizona. And cbp has deployed all planned systems to texas and california all the cbp estimate this progress in Technology Deployment weve also reported that cbp could do more to strengthen its management of Technology Programs and better assess the contributions of surveillance technologies to Border Security efforts. For example, cbp has previous experience delays in some of this Technology Programs. We also produce a reviewed cbps schedule and lifecycle cost estimates fo for the isd, rvss d msc program and we compared the schedules and estimates to best practices. Over all the schedules and estimates for the programs reflected some but not all best practices and we found cbp could take better further action to better ensure the reliability of its schedules and cost estimates by more fully applying those best practices. Cbp has taken steps toward addressing our recommendations in these areas such as providing us with updated schedule for some of the Technology Programs which it showed notable improvements in quality. We are continuing to review cbps schedules and estimates as part of our ongoing work for the subcommittee. For the come cbp has identified the mission benefits of Surveillance Technology such as improved Situational Awareness and agent safety pick cbp has also begun requiring Border Patrol to record data within its database on whether or not an asset such as a camera is a positive step towards helping cbp assess the contribution of its advanced technology to Border Security. However come cbp needs to develop and implement Performance Measures and analyzing data that it is now collecting to be able to fully assess the contributions of this technology to Border Security. In closing or continue to examine cbps use of technology for Border Security as part of our ongoing work. We will also continue to follow up on actions taken by cbp in response to our recommendations from management and measurement of the agencies landbased surveillance technologies. This concludes my oral statement and it had to answer any questions members have. Thank you, ms. Gambler. I cannot wrestle for five minutes for questions. Chief luck and director miscellany, integrated google Situational Awareness of all operational level it also tactical level. There has been critical in the sector but weve lost a bit of our area capabilities in that sector and we understand that were going to lose somewhere in the future. I understand there is increased activity in other sectors, but still 50 of the marijuana comes to the tucson sector and especially in the hot summer we have a number of deaths in the desert and their assets are critical to getting to people before its lifethreatening. Could you share with the impact has been of decrease in error and the tucson sector and any plans you have to further decrease it . Against this is a concern of ours. We feel we are potentially going to shift away from that she would lose more air. As far as flight hours, is that what your concern is . Flight hours and assets. Okay. So we execute about 95,000 flight hours a year. Thats been a pretty a pretty consistent number with us. There has been more movement as tucson has gained more of the control of the border than it was ten years ago, when the flight hours were much higher than our right now, but in a process of actually tucson and then getting a hold of and more maintenance of the border weve seen a shift inflows to south texas. There has been more of, theres been a movement of flight hours and funding towards the south texas area. I dont necessarily proceed arizona to drop any further than it is right now at adobe that this dropping in the way shows a lack of interest from erin marine into that area. Tucson as it is is the largest branch we have. I would probably say agents are somewhat around 80 total. It is more assets than anybody else and also flies more than anybody else. It is still a center caulk force in that western side of the United States. It has a large diversity of platforms. Principal the uas flies out of their, more flight hours than any other. We have black hawks, citations for air interdictions and we have a yes 350s and and small fixed wing aircraft. It is a hub for us in the southwest region. Chief luck, any comments on that . I would just add based on your Opening Statements that we are testing other things, other Unmanned Aerial Systems to fill a gap and we will test some with the small uas in arizona here coming next month. So that is a gap filler or needed air requirements in Southern Arizona. In south texas and also testing them in vermont to see what the capability is. We have come quite a long ways with regard to as a u. S. In filling gaps in air requirements. Thanks for continuing the air discussion, the vader technology has been helpful but the feedback that we get when i go down to visit is oftentimes theres several limitations obviously to the Unmanned Aerial Systems as whe to when a complat and when information is available. Weve talked several times since i didnt subcommittee chair about pushing forward to also have that capability on manned aircraft. I know you are piloting that, pardon the pun. But can you give an update on the process of getting the vader technology Unmanned Aircraft to provide more flexibility . Well, first let me say that we are hoping to expand the uas capabilities with vader. We are close to moving into a 24 by five operation when you probably visit throughout this year, it was a 16 by five. What happens with the weather is we do exact as you mentioned before you get affected by weather for takeoffs and landings. If we moved to a five by 24 model we can launch and recovery around those weather patterns. Weve done a few experiments with that on a four by five and we get massive bumps in flight hour availability. That is our initial plan going forward. As far as putting the vader i met asset, that is a bit outcome of those are a few years out from having that available. So thats not being piloted . It is but its not, theres nothing physical. So the timeline for even knowing whether thats a possibility, your sink is several years . I dont believe it is so what years but can i get you a better timeline on that . Absolutely. This is something weve been interested in for a while so it be helpful to understand the plan for that and the tonic for testing, evaluation and all that. Were going to have a second round. Im running out of my time so i will now recognize mr. Correa,. Thank you, madam chair. Ms. Gambler, a couple questions. What with the lessons from the failed sbinet . Has cbp fixed the management cost and schedule problems that led to the failure of sbinet . Could we see more of the same with ongoing and future cbp Technology Acquisitions . Sure. Ill answer the middle question first if thats okay in terms of be the way. The cost and schedule. We have seen improvements, particularly in cbps schedules for some of the different landbased surveillance technologies. So thats been a positive step that cbp has made toward addressing our recommendations. In terms of the life cycle cost estimate for specifically for the rvss program, cbp and dhs have worked to conduct an independent lifecycle cost estimate and try to reconcile that to the cost estimate that cbp has for the rvss, and will be working with cbp to get documentation that and take a look at it. So we have seen progress being made on those schedules and estimates and that progress is really positive. In terms of your broader question, Ranking Member, the Lessons Learned and steps going forward, i think theres two key themes are Lessons Learned from our work looking at cbps Technology Programs. The first is that its important for cbp to make sure the Technology Programs go through the dhs Acquisition Management process fully and completely. Dhss Acquisition Management process is a robust, valid Knowledge Base process but cbp hasnt always ensured that Technology Program has moved to the process consistently. So they need to apply the Acquisition Management process consistently to their Technology Program. Secondly as i mentioned in my oral statement, its important for cbp to put in place and metrics that we been recommended for several years so that they can really assess what were getting out of our investments and technology. Those are the two things we see Lessons Learned and are important thing for cbp to focus on going forward. Thank you, ms. Gambler. A recent gao report concluded that cbp lack the metrics necessary to show whether or how the existing border wall contributes to Border Security. Does it make sense to move forward with president trumps multibillion dollar wall before cbp can show a kind of return the american taxpayers would get on their investment, if any . And is a possible, less costly to have less intrusive Border Security measures that would be more effective . Ranking member, that question get at two key findings from gaos work on infrastructure and technology along the border. The first is we do think its important for cbp to put metrics in place. For tactical infrastructure to include that dancing thats been deployed as well as technologies that are mentioned. The other important theme from our work is, and we reported on this previously as it relates to technologies, is the need for cbp to be able to document the investments its making and why its choosing to put certain technologies for certain assets in certain places. So seeing that documentation about the types and locations and quantities of things that are being deployed is an important part of planning for these types of acquisitions. Just as a followup comment. 20 years ago in los angeles as seizure of 2 billion of cash and drugs occurred, semi truck stop, regular come in and off dropping tons of the drugs. Those are not going to the terrain. Theyre going through the border, border checkpoints. Yesterday, San Antonio Texas 20 and document individuals in a semi, and so my point is you got a wall, yet you got most of the traffic according to most of the folks i talked to at the border, to the checkpoints, existing border checkpoint. Those are my questions. Invest in the board or do you invest at better xray machine at the Border Crossing stations . Comment or statement, thank you. I think thats absolutely the right questions that we should be asking. Its important for cbp to be able to provide information on their plan so that decisionmakers and congress can evaluate those plans and determine what would be the most effective use of resources. I think you are asking a very important question about technology and infrastructure deployment. Thank you madam chair. I yield. Chair recognizes mr. Smith from texas. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you all for your expertise and your dedication to our country. It really is a privilege for us to hear you all today here you are on the front lines. You know firsthand whats going on. Mr. Locke, before address some questions to you, let me preface the question by saying when i was first elected i represented over 100 miles of texas mexico border and thats what really to my attention on a particular subject. Over the years i have seen some examples of what works and what does not work. We all know we need a combination of physical structure, personnel and technology. In san diego, for example, you a double fence that has succeeded in stopping illegal immigration by about 95 . Years ago, i know you were in the el paso sector, chief of operations, but former member of congress so this was once the Border Sector chief. He stationed Border Patrol agents very, very close together. I dont know if it was 100 chart or whatever and it was personal intensive, but he stop illegal immigration almost entirely. That was an example of how that worked. I know in texas a number of years ago we tried at great cost a virtual fence. Basically had to abandon it in part because of vandalism by the illegal immigrants, in part because of false positives by the sensors, and a part because we didnt have enough Border Patrol agent making of the technology. I know technology has improved since then i guess im saying there are parts of the border that limit themselves more to one another perhaps. I wanted to ask you where you thought it would be most beneficial to have a physical structure along the border, where you thought it might be most beneficial to have technology along the border. Thank you for the question. It depends on the terrain and it depends on the threat. So in the urban areas we want to have something that slows down the volume, the traffic flow. So we want to have a persistent impedance or impedance and analysicanalsystem such as a phl barrier. But that in itself doesnt work on its own. So its a part of a package that we are concentrating on as part of our new strategy as it relates to the executive order and relates the operational control. The first part of that is of course the impedance and denial, the deterrence and so forth. Then we have the domain awareness thats knowing what we are going to do and what assets, thats the technology piece. The access and mobility and having direct access to the border and roads and infrastructure is a third piece. And the last piece, of course, is the agents. So its a combination of all four of those master capabilities that gets us to the operational control that we are looking for. That depends on the location and the threat. And so in california as you mentioned the physical barrier helps stop the flow. Helps displace the traffic so that we have, we can use Technology Assets, Situational Awareness to detect that traffic and then bring it to a Law Enforcement resolution. Would it be accurate to summarize what you just said as saying that in the urban areas and hig hightraffic areas a physical structure is necessary, and in other areas maybe would be more technology than physical structure . That is accurate. And last week the president said something along the lines of seven, 90 miles a physical structure, roughly half of a 2000 melbourne on the southern part of the United States, but we have some fencing in place obviously. Some single, some double, some concrete. But with the seven to 900 miles sound about right for what we need a physical structure . To be honest we havent gotten that far. We havent gotten that far in determining what they use to follow will give us your base on the budget. What we do have is a plan for 17, a plan for 18, and then a plan for 1923. Okay. Lets take the outside lincoln 1923. How many miles of physical structure are anticipated by then . We dont have that number yet. Thats something were still developing. And theres a lot of variables that go into that. As we put impedance and denial on the border and other systems to back that up, it may have a trend of Different Things that will happen as a result. The adversary does have a vote in this. So we dont want to put specifically from point a to point b if you need isnt that there. Understand. If you look at the urban areas and if you look at the hightraffic areas you when to come up with several hundred miles. I do know exactly what it would be either but clearly there is a role for the fencing, sometimes a double fence in which his work particularly well on the southern border. Absolutely. That as well as in some areas of patrol area thats in between. Correct. Thanthank you, mr. Luck. Thank you, madam chair. The chair recognizes ms. Berrigan. Thank you. Mr. Michelini, i represent the port of los angeles and jones of becoming more prevalent in commercial and personal use. Sometimes come into the land at airspace of ports and other security sensitive entry points. How is cbp dealing with circuit issues these drones present at port and is cbp working with the tsa and other Law Enforcement to address this problem . Cbp is working with the faa on drones those small drones are still mostly an faa concern. Those aircraft are not supposed to fly, i mean, about 500 feet so they can sort themselves out from a manned aircraft. Specifically around ports of entry, im not up to speed on what kind of cbp actions have done in that regard. Okay. Does anybody else on the panel want to add anything to that, or kind of address if theres any jurisdiction issues that need to be result . Im not aware of any jurisdictional issues but im aware in the ports and Critical Infrastructure we work closely with the local Law Enforcement to respond to any information that may be, indicate there is a drone activity in the area but im not aware of any jurisdictional issues. Mr. Scott im sorry, mr. Luck, what type of full abilities has cbp identified in the arizona border Surveillance Technology plan and what is cbps Cybersecurity Strategy for the southwest border Technology Plan . Could you repeat that, please . Sure. What cyber vulnerabilities has cbp identified in the arizona border Surveillance Technology plan, and what is cbps Cybersecurity Strategy for the southwest border Technology Plan . I would have to get back to you on that. I dont have an answer for that question. Okay. If you could follow up that would be great. Absolutely, right. Okay, lets, mr. Luck, does cbp have a document plant orchards to achieve Situational Awareness along our borders . Yes, maam, and we get that through our resource, requirements management process. Part of that is the sea gap, capability gap assessment process that we use to bring in the gaps are in coverage can what gaps are that needed to be filled. Along the border. And then from there, thats a bottomup approach. From there we decide up with the best course of action or whether that surveillance, technology or whether thats a system or physical barrier. Okay. Ms. Gambler, and march 2014 the gao reported the cbp schedules and lifecycle cost assessment for the arizona border Surveillance Technology plan and his three highs cost programs, which represented 97 7 of the plans total estimated costs, that some but not all best practices. Gao recommended that cbp ensure that its schedule and cost estimates more fully address best practices such as validating cost estimates with independent estimates and dhs concurred. What more remains to be done . To reconcile those estimates will be obtaining followup documentations from dhs on that effort effort and could certainly followup with you after we have had a chance to look at that and make our own analysis. We have not seen dep has yet done an independent lifecycle cost estimate for that program and in line with what we recommended its important. Do you have an estimate on the timeline on when it might be done . With regard to us looking at the independent lifecycle concept in the reconciliation we are following up with dep now on that so hopefully we can get back to you on that pretty quickly. Thank you. I feel that. The chair recognizes just the gentleman from texas. Thank you chairwoman for this important hearing and i would like to echo my colleagues in your thanks for being here. With 825 miles of border recognize the difficulty of your task and having spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer chasing terrorists Nuclear Weapons proliferate is, you name it i recognize how difficult it is to secure our borders. I was just proud my first bill signed into law helps Border Patrol agents make sure their pay wasnt being cut so this is something thats very important to me. And 2017, i think we as a government should have done a better job of helping Deploy Technology along the border to do your job and i think i guess my first question is and maybe this goes to you first mr. Luck and mr. Sadberry. Currently right now how is Computer Vision being used in Border Security . Computer vision. Could you help me address that . Sure. We have these fixed towers and we have censor technology. We have all this data thats coming in. Are we using automated tools in order to determine whether the movement of something is dangerous or is it something that requires Border Patrol . Yes we are doing some as you may know we are using our partners. We have agencies assigned to extend our borders and we are using systems with airport partners in Different Countries to help to predict what the traffic flow will be so those are all in collecting information and using that information to help us better prepare for whats coming to the border and so we are using that. The systems that we use for processing has been evolved. Took him in to on ms. Gamblers comments on how we track the assets that we do use, that has been implemented into our e3 system and so we are using a lot of, there is a lot of data coming in. The intelligence agents that are out there have an apparatus either in their sectors are the headquarters through the Operation Office of intelligence to be able to collate the data. And so how much of the Current System automates detection and in this day and age we can deploy any number of systems, lidar, radar, fiberoptic cable to detect a bunny rabbit from a human and we should be able to automate better to wear a computer can tell us that it was a bunny rabbit or a deer or a cow. I hope we could say a cow with fever tick or not with fever tick in texas. Is that being done . As far as the systems we have with integrated powers and some of our mobile surveillance capability, that is being done. We have multiple leaders layers. You have the cameras and an alarm that will go off in the control room that will say instead of 100 cameras that an officer and agents have to look at there is an alarm that goes off that says there has been an incursion and it skews over and helps with that. Thats the automation we are looking for. We have some work to do to connect everything so it all comes together and with all the systems we have and system components. Do you have an integrated picture back at headquarters or does the joint task force have an integrated picture in san antonio on the southwestern border . They dont have an integrated picture. They continue to look at the peabody and see that. Does the individual agent on the ground i was recently in del rio and its not a pleasant experience especially at 105degree weather. If there was a detection of this, does that individual agent that may be patrolling that part of the sector, do they get notification . Yes. And is that a walkietalkie . The icac system is a system they use in dispatch and an underground censor goes off it automatically hits and they will call it out. Madam chairman can we have another round . Grade i yield back. The gentleman yields back. We are starting a second round. I want to continue with that line of questioning could awareness to the actual agents is something ive been pushing through the subcommittee. If we are bringing information together but its back in the Operations Center the person on the ground doesnt have that. The quality information for them is key and it is not ideal given the technology that we have. Similarly the mobile surveillance cameras they were talking about have just the person at the truck has that Situational Awareness so what sort of initiative are ongoing related to bringing the data and information together in a huge way but then also providing appropriate information to the agents of their essay is increased as they are out there putting their lives on the line . One of the things we are working with now is a platform where using tracking site cutting and modeling systems. What that does is when that takes place automatically when the agent calls and says hey i have a sign of three that im working on automatically that starts to attract geospatial tract or geolocator track on where that agent is and what hes doing. What it does is it fills in the gaps and other technology can be used to assist him in that arena. So they are doing it a lot. Tracking what his movements are about technology is utilized and what things can be used. What we want to do, and that then transfers over when the agent makes an arrest that transfers over to the e3 Processing System so that it can be used to capture all the events that took place. They are still getting information by voices the point. Is there something in the works for tracking, some sort of ipad Situational Awareness for the agent if we had a friendly fire death in our sector. That build Situational Awareness so they can see whats going on so its not just the guys in the Airconditioned Office letter saying that. We know that thats a gap and we are trying to do that. Some of that is gaps in communication and having access to systems that track that like downstream. We use it in some areas or as a u. S. For example that the agent has the ability to see what the su afcs but as far as the ability to have something on them that can be used to track it theres an expense. The tracking of course has to be negotiated to try to get that part of the picture. So, what youre saying is there is no requirement or Technology Development in its process or funded to specifically provide increased Situational Awareness to the agent on the ground . You are talking about ideas but we dont actually have a program or system requirements right now . Not that i know of right now maam. That i know of. Can you give me an update on your testing in arizona and where are you doing that . So what we have done with the uav as we worked in partnership with air marines and we have an mou in place with the federal Aviation Administration so we can test those. We have both a suite of different capabilities, one being the quad copter that you see up in the air for about 30 minutes or so. The other is a raven type where it can be longer distance for a longer time and the other one has got a three hour time span. We bought some of those and now we want to test those in Operational Testing environment in arizona, in south texas and coming up in september. Okay so will you follow up to wear an arizona . Absolutely. To go back to another line of questioning are you considering the cybersecurity element of back . Off the shelf would be great for getting capabilities to the agents but if they can be easily jammed or intercepted. Thats part of it and some the things going on in Silicon Valley will help with sensors and so forth. I want to reiterate and he brought it up several times in Southern Arizona we have a very robust uav training capability. They have been wanting to partner with you all. We have made some introductions. I think not everybody in the brockers he is but we would love to follow up without especially during your testing evaluation so youre not reinventing the wheel. And mr. Correa you have five minutes. I didnt understand your question when we asked if cbp had the matrix necessary to assess the effectiveness of the existing border wall and possibly a proposed border wall. Do we have the matrix . Cbps does not currently have metrics in place to assess the contribution that existing sensing is making to Border Security efforts. Barbree reported on in our report on existing testing earlier this year we recommended that cbp put in place those metrics to include using the existing data they have to be able to assess what contribution is happening to Border Security. Think you. A question to the panel if i may. I took a number of tours to the border area, san diego and i notice the california Highway Patrol isnt stationed there but i believe every semitruck believe every semitruck that comes through is checked for safety. Every quarter to make sure every truck that comes by its up to california vehicle code. Number two, every semiis checked for radiation and they are also checked for other possible issues. My question to you is given that situation, that investment that the state of california has made in ensuring the safety californians do you have the same relationship with the other border states in terms of coordinating and making sure you share information from california to mexico arizona and texas . I will tell you all the ports of entry is very common to find the state authorities just outside of our compound looking at trucks for the road worthiness and safety issues that you mentioned and for the radiation screening thats a function that we perform within the ports of entry. Every truck in every passenger vehicle coming into United States is green for radiation before it continues so we have been doing that since 2002 and again most people arent aware of that activity that takes place. We do coordinate with the state Transportation Police outside of those dates on different activities and things of that nature. What you see in california is very common along the land Border Crossing. I guess my question is i assume you do communicate with local, state authorities in terms of coordinating data to make sure if there are patterns there you actually pick them up. Patterns we do and we are members of the various task forces the work along the southwest border where that information is shared and finding things of that nature so i would argue on the Border Patrol site in Field Operations site communication with state and local authorities along the border region is very strong. Secretary had mentioned right now coordination and cooperation with the mexican authorities is is again my prior life i took a tour of the southern Mexican Border and i noticed most of the vehicles coming in from mexico were xrayed and a lot of that data is digitalized into mexico city and i believe it was shared with langley. It added a whole layer, multilayered defense. If that relationship still there and does it exist and is it expanded . Tell me how we work with partners not only with the southwest border but around the world in terms of enhanced security of secretary kelly has said. Those items get to the border, you have to interject those items before they actually get to the border. I will tell you within the opposite Field Operations we have strong partnerships at 52 seaports around the globe as part of our Container Security initiative where we identify highrisk shipping before they are headed this way in partnership with columbia and honduras and panama better variant effective in terms of narcotics interdiction. Activity at the port of entry the last three years ive been in this position very much of the improved relationships with the mexican authorities to the point that in several locations in arizona we have customs in the u. S. Conducting joint inspections with us as part of a unified cargo inspection process it reduces redundancies and helps facilitate lawful Trading Travel and very effective in arizona. The relationship of mexico is very strong. Im running out of time so very quickly id like to create a matrix to assess how effective that relationship is inspecting and being effective at the border. Thank you very much. I yield back in chair. The chairman recognizes mr. Hurd of arizona. Madam chairman. The same question for you all. Take a minute and a half. Describe mr. Luck, describe your dream tech scenario for the cbp tomorrow. My tech scenario would he having the right mixture based on the threat having the right mixture of technology and we cant do it alone. Nobodys technology is ever made in apprehension. It informs and talks while the other component pieces that behalf within cbp and so that information is shared immediately to all components in agents and officers who need it. That would he my dream scenario. We have systems out there, standalone systems that we would need that in my view need to speak to one another and share that information. Whatever use of technology that is so we are not redundant and those efforts and we know exact weight the same Situational Awareness regarding, regardless of that operating entity. And mr. Luck please correct me if im wrong. I feel like existing technology, there is too much of an operating burden on the person using it. We need technology that is a little bit more userfriendly. We need to make sure that this is integrated as you say across various elements not just within a team within a particular sector but across sectors and even back at headquarters and as chairwoman mcsally was saying getting information in the end of the individual agent whether they are in their vehicle, on foot, and that allows them to do only what they can do, the hardest part in interdiction and anything i described, am i out of line . No sir. We are trying to get you some de niro to do all of this by the way and thats why i get frustrated with all this talk about the wall because 24. 5 billion dollars a mile is a lot of money. You can deploy a lot of offtheshelf tech allergies to do what i just described for half a Million Dollars a mile and if we add this out to an additional 1350 miles of the border that doesnt have sensing that is 33 billion. I can use 32 billion of that for a lot of other things like give you all folks more pay for the hard work you do and give commissioner michelini more air assets. That Leverages Technology to make sure the men and women in Border Patrol are doing their thing. Mr. Owens the same question. The technology that is the cornerstone of our interdiction activity the port of entry is the nonobtrusive the inspection tech elegy for what we need is technology that has the capability to keep the cargo flowing. On the passenger side we have tried to lower Energy Systems where the passengers and travelers stay in the car. We scan the car safely for the presence of any contraband. Those of any gamechanger for us in the passenger arena. What we have on the horizon and working with our science and Technology Directors is a similar drive through system for cargo. The challenge we have with cargo trucks now is generally having Single Energy system. You have to take the driver out of the cab. You cant use the highenergy system on the driver. That slows things down so with those Current System only seven trucks in our can be scampered the technology on the horizon that i see as the gamechanger or cargo inspection is a multienergy that you can ratchet down to low Energy Version that scans the cabin is the driver and clear it ratchets up cargo. That will allow the trucks to continue to move and not have to come to a stop. We estimate 10 times as many inspections can be done in an hour with that technology but thats on the horizon we are looking at several locations. I really see that as a gamechanger for us in terms of our interdiction efforts. Chairwoman i think we should put that on the list. My final question and maybe its to you ms. Gambler or mr. Luck. How much money do we spend in a year on tunnel detection . I dont know how much money we spend. They know that we are working a lot with partners and the most recent tunnel detection capability is a vulnerability and the threats that we need to think seriously about. We are working with industry and certainly working with our partners from israel to give us the latest and greatest. We have an apparatus in getting that as technology and we are worried about tunnel detection under physical barriers like the existing fence we have. Is that correct . Yes we are imparted of the plan would be to put fiber optics in their. I would just add a think we may have some date on that happy to follow up with you and provide what we have. Thank you all very much and thank you for the indulge my. Now i would recognize mr. Rutherford for five minutes. Thank you madam chair. I am particularly drawn to the circle here, the apprehension lifecycle as you all call it says i often say the same thing about this wall concept that awol is not a barrier. Its just an impediment and what we need is to provide you with a technology that you can detect, track apprehend and in a secure way these folks were coming over the border but let me ask, the technology, when we visited the southern border specifically it seemed like as far as fort white chica they had pretty good integration of communications and intelligence going on. Further east of that the Rio Grande Valley didnt seem to have been as much in the way of technology being applied. It almost looked like they ran out of money or something or maybe its just the next phase but it doesnt seem like the Rio Grande Valley was getting the attention that the other areas that we have observed had. Mr. Luck can you speak to that and specifically in the Rio Grande Valley. Yes sir and you are right we didnt have enough attention on the Rio Grande Valley. These traffic was coming to arizona so our technology laid out these things take time and some of these options take more time than others. We are trying to get arizona under control so now the focus is on the valley so we are trying to Bring Technology in there and we will be bringing technology in there. In the way of visual Surveillance Systems in our ability to do surveillance we do have the d. O. T. Tactical aerostats that have been very good and we have help from our partners with systems and sensors that they have as far as flight hours and now we are trying to concentrate and move into persistent Surveillance Technology relocatable towers. That is if we want to move into rgb we can do quicker and they have the sophisticated camera systems that give those agents more Situational Awareness. In that area as you know we have to have height to be able to see into that and so we are also tes that will maybe help us get more of the Situational Awareness such as radar and things of that natures to try to test the things that help us get the better picture. We are recognizing that we need to have more technology in the valley. I believe theres a significant increase in the Technology Budget to help with that, correct . Gessen we thank you. Let me ask because another piece of the lifecycle as you call it, the apprehension phase of that is boots on the ground. You just have to have boots on the ground. Just that simple. Is there anything that we can do to help you all in that process, acquiring more boots on the ground and the training and recruitment on all of that . We are working very diligently with that. H. R. S. H. Heiresses made over 40 improvements in their pre deployment process and were doing things with waivers and we have dedicated people that have proven their integrity with waivers of the polygraph. Is that helping . Yes sir and has a robust effort towards improvement right now. Very good. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Morales if you dont mind. Great thank you. In several hearings we talked about starting to measure the use of technology and apprehensions and order to better understand the metrics and whether technology is helping. Do we have any investments . We have talked about this for over a year. Do we have any investment of how any of the technologies are assisting at apprehension or do we not yet have enough time . A few years ago we have you have provided us with one sample of how they have tried to look at metrics so we have been evaluating that that we need to see them do it more systematically across the border and so in order to adjust the recommendation we really need see that order patrol is looking at this through more systematic approach. Im wondering mr. Luck the deployment of isps more recently in arizona, is there any sort of assessment on shortterm assessments on the effectiveness of back . You dont know whether you are deterring it to the dior things are shifting for Different Reasons but do you have any feedback on how isps and other technology are working . The reports im getting in a short time its been on line in ifp and douglas the area that they can cover and the workability of those systems are functioning properly and its a great asset in those environments. Msc and rb ss and periodically until he can get to the placement is really working well in arizona and other places as well. Its good feedback from those that are out there in charge so would be helpful to figure out the metrics in the measurement of any integration with other systems. Thats right and we are happy to help provide feedback on that progress as well as they are developing metrics that we have talked about and offered in the past. Mammoth like you just addon the status of one of the recommendations as bars or system e3, are Processing System and the ability to use a checkdown box in response to adding technology to the apprehension and process phase. That is an accomplished and its working well. Its good to have a drop down box that has to be checked involving technology and other assets to make oldschool choices as it relates to the apprehension. You talk about technology the multienergy system and the technology being helpful but the reality is you still have massive amounts of opioids, synthetic opioids and the hard drugs that are killing americans right now in a crisis level coming mostly through the ports of entry so what other technologies do we need in order to get what we are missing pets we know what we are getting but we are obviously missing a lot because of the epidemic we have going on in our country so what else do we need . Its very challenging and the height and number 76 billion. Its difficult to inspect all of those so we rely on intelligence and our target capability to get advance information that we have and oftentimes it comes down to the instruction and training of the officers to since when something is wrong and they send individual. The current challenge is compounded by the two main pathways we have from china primarily coming to the International Mill system as well as the express Courier Office and the volume is overwhelming. Ecommerce continues to skyrocket. We have trained and 60 million parcels last year and it significantly increase this year so a very difficult environment as well as the numbers. We have dedicated men and women that use the tools that others have provided to us and we are affect you but. Its important to realize coming from china what is the percentage versus coming to the border . I am not sure i have her percentage. The testing we have done in the security of the chinese fentanyl coming through the mail and express is close to 100 . Very strong and very deadly. The. E. Of the fentanyl coming across the border is a significant threat but you have two different challenges that we are dealing with with their international partners. Hopefully we will see relief and that area as well. Thanks for highlighting that. With that i recognized mr. Correa. What needs to be done to measure the effectiveness of this capability and using all the tools and the best way possible and i say that from the following perspective. We talk about a lot of things we can do at the border. A smart border, inland ports, new technology. In my remarks i talked about the agents not being able to talk to each other or to see each other but the communication devices were effective and that reminds me a couple of decades ago. We dont have that same situation. Basically investing in common Everyday Technology to make our personnel much more effective. MultiEnergy Systems that you talk about i took a tour of san diego and im not going to mention the name of the manufacturing san diego. They were able to detect organics of drugs. They could actually drive the trucks through and after 20 seconds they could fully checked the truck and if they saw anything negative they would put them through a secondary inspection. Again a lot of tools in the toolbox and a lot of technology yet the medium potato stuff still has to be a dressed and thats where i think the matrix of assuring what is most costeffective with respect to the taxpayers and public safety. Unlike the chairperson was saying right now, now you are talking about direction from china, directly through the mail i wouldnt even know how to address that one but these are the challenges we need to look at and where do we need to invest and we have to come back to the matrix. Anybody care to address it . Ranking member i would add from our perspective than what her work has shown to kind of key steps that are part of this process. The department cbp sends metrics would have been recommending metrics in the Border Security area for several years. They actually need to take positions on what they want to measure and the second of that is cbp collects a lot of data as an agency and certainly what chief luck was describing in terms of them requiring asset assistance information to be entered into the database thats a really positive step but what they need to do now is they need to use the data they have systematically to measure relative to the metrics and roll that they set so those are two fundamental steps we think are an important part of assessing what we are getting out of the assessment. Any other comments . Thank you. Madam chair, i yield. I appreciate the gentleman yields back and we were just talking looking towards a Border Security bill working together on integrated technology and Situational Awareness in the port of entry technology. We are going to follow up as we look to future legislation. I want to thank the witnesses. It was a good discussion and members of the committee may have additional questions for the witnesses. I think we also have some for the record as well. As he responded in writing pursuant to Committee Rule seven e. And the hearing record will be open for 10 days. Without objection the committees now stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] theme in every single continent has been one or two topics how angry people are on whats happening or how flabbergasted they are to learn whats happening. Its not i havent received any mild everything is okay. Especially for the most recent was the records wont be open for 100 years and instead we are paying for celebration and a legacy building. Next a look at corporate run prisons. Last year mother jones magazine sent reporter shane bauer to louisiana as a prison guard to investigate the forprofit institution. Mr. Bauer was part of a form at the Commonwealth Club of california looking at private m. Public prisons. Good evening everyone. My name is mina kim. Im on the friday host of forum and im really glad that marissa is not my editor. I had to keep my question to 15 words, my gosh. Welcome to tonights program at the Commonwealth Club. Tonights program tackles the questions surrounding and whether private prisons help or harm the functioning of our criminal justice system. This is an important question because private prisons have been making a comeback