Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing Examines Border Security Techn

The office of Field Operations job is to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, while maintaining a list of those who cannot entry enter our country. Also, the supporting element, which provides intervention support. These components rely heavily on technology to accomplish their mission. Technology is a crucible a crucial multiplier, and the right mix of infrastructure, personnel, and technology has worked for the last 20 years. Instead of focusing on the gadgets and gizmos and repeated failures we have had, i think it is important to think strategically about the decisionmaking process. Those who mean to exploit our border for illicit purposes. Destroy that process by using usenology will help better the funding to secure the border in the long term. I want to take a hard look at the Role Technology plays in predicting, deterring, and detecting Illicit Activity along border. St order it is difficult to measure or accomplish. Discouraging bad actors from crossing the batter the border is our best defense. Isentially, deterrence predicted on two things. First, the perception that illegal smuggling is a costly endeavor, and second that the likelihood of success is low. But if we cannot successfully then we have to shift to detection, surveillance, and intervention. That is where the role of Technology Becomes indispensable with the rugged border. And the lack of infrastructure on both sides of the border and security posturing and in the area should inform the to we used to monitor and surveilled the border. On a consistent basis, this is the Situational Awareness. The goal is to maintain operational control of the camera, xray devices, and other surveillance equipment have become and said essential elements. The seven hands officer safety, provide a constant monitoring, and enhanced ability to deter criminal activity. Other technology has also helped reposition and redeploy assets as vulnerabilities shift click. I look forward to the progress update in light of the additional Funds Congress has provided for this effort. A secure border is an outcome the American People demand, regardless of the steps we take to get there. Congress has repeatedly asked one confidential consequential question. What will it take to gain control of the border . Up until the answers have been limited or unsupported. They have been unsufficient. At best they have been some best guesses. Congress expects the border parole and air and marine to be able to justify the tech any logical needs required to secure the border. So far, they have been involved in an effort called c gap. It is a scenario based exercise designed to fair out tactical weaknesses and hopefully inform the tech logical budget process. Thanks for being here to discuss the many ways in which we could be using technology and i look forward to the witness testimony. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, thesubstitute Ranking Member for an opening statement. Thank you. Im pleased to join you for todays hearing examining u. S. Customs and Border Protection efforts to enhance Border Security with the use of technology technology. The Ranking Member cant joinus today due to some other commitments, so im happy to step in in his stead. Over the past several years, we have Seen Technology used to improve Situational Awareness and to improve commerce across our borders. While secretary kelly and many lawmakers talk about the value of technology to better secure borders, we remain concerned that we are not utilizing technology to its fullest benefits. We know the Trump Administration prioritized technology borders. President trump ran for office to build a wall 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 able to talk to each other using their existing equipment. Ive heard some of these folks tell me they can see eachother two to three hundred yards away. Yet, they cant use some of their walky ki taukie talkies. That is a sad testament. With limited resources for technology on the border, it is important that customs and border get it right when it comes to procuring, testing and employeeing technology along the border. The department of Homeland Security has for years attempted to Deploy Technology to the borders with mixed results at best. Identifying the right mix of Border Security technology isnt easy. But we got to get it right. A million here, a million there translates to a billion here, a billion there and those dollars we can only spend once. Those are very precious taxpayer dollars. We know the Border Crossers and elicit traffic changes from daytoday in our technology need to evolve. This is another reason, a primary reason why a border wall, in my opinion, is not a solution to our Border Security challenges. Remember, we have two borders and we have two oceans. Americans borders are buried as well with different geogravity and climate. Given the shift to physical barriers over technology, i remain concerned about our Border Security and technology deployment. Id like to hear today cbp justify while whole sail fiscal infrastructure plan would be more effective than deploying strategic assets along the border. And the secretary kelly has said here numerous times theborder, rather we need a multilayered defense system. I also hope to hear from our gar witness today about their examination of cvps metrics to measure the performance of border technologies and whether dhss procurement and Acquisition Management processes are sound or still need to be improved. Also in light of the mess of Acquisition Management resources that would be needed to be dedicated to constructing physical wall, i would like to know how they would manage existing contracts as it shifts to focus on personnel to man the new wall. Finally, i hope we can have a frank discussion about how cvp can best position its ongoing Border Security Technology Programs for success in this environment of scarcere sources. I thank the witnesses for joining us here today and i yield backmy time, madam chair. Other members of thecommittee are reminded that Opening Statements may be submitted for the record. I am pleased to be joined today by four distinguished witnesses. Mr. Todd owen is the executive commissioner for the office of Field Operations. Prior to becoming executive commissioner, he served in various roles within the office and most recently as a director of field office. Scott luck began his career in 1986 and serves at acting deputy chief chief. He was the chief of Operations Division for the u. S. Order patrol. Dennis serves as the executive director for air and marines oefrmss division. He began his career with cvp in 1995 where he served as an agent and a pilot. Prior to that, we served as the deck tor of air operations strategy. And rebecca is director in the Homeland Security and justice team where she leads gaos work in the management and transformation. The witnesses full written statement will appear in the record. The chair recognizes mr. Owen for five minutes. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today alongside mycolleagues from the u. S. Border patrol and air and marines operations to discuss the role of fieldoperations in detecting and interdicting Illegal Drugs and other dangerous materials in at our ports of entry. Before my appointment in february of 2015, i served in several relevant roles within cvp. Most recently as director of Field Operations for los angeles and previously as executive director. I know firsthand how valuable technology is to cvps able to detect materials that pose a threat to the United States. Used in conjunction with cvps risk based capabilities and security partnerships, advanced technology is an essential component in our mission to intercept Illegal Drugs and other drugs before they cross our borders. Cvp officers regularly find drugs concealed on individuals, hidden inside vehicle seat cushions, gas tanks and fired, and tires, within hygiene products. In check luggage and in Construction Materials transported on commercial trucks. This past weekend, officers discovered and seized 147 pounds of cocaine hidden in the gas tank of a commercial bus. While cvp officers intercepted three internal carriers of heroin and methamphetamine. All passengers were traveling together and entered through the pedestrian lanes. 118 pounds of methamphetamine concealed inside a vehicle. These are examples of threats that cvp officers address every day. To counter the full range of concealment techniques, they maintain vehicle inspection regimes at our ports of entry, including the use of nonintrusive equipment, as well as Radiation Detection technology. Nii technologies deploy to our nations land, sea and ports of entry, include xray and imagines systems as well as a variety of portable and handheld technologies. These systems enable cvp officers for the presence of contraband withoutphysically opening or unloading them. It is a force multiplier which allows cvp to work smarter and faster, while expediting legitimate trade and travel. In 2016 large scale nii systems were used to conduct more than 6. 5 million examinations resulting in more than 2,600 seizures and over 359,000 pounds of seized narcotics. Cvp has also deployed nuclear and radio logical detention equipment, such as radiationisotope identification devices and personal radiation detectors nationwide. Using radiation monitors, cvp is able to scan 100 percent of mail, 100 of all trucks and personally owned trucks and nearly 100 of all arriving maritime ice cargo for the presence of raidiological or nuclear materials. Advancements in cargo, convince and vehicle Screening Technology increases their ability to detect and interdict drugs and other dangerous materials and continues to be a cornerstone of cvps multilayered strategy. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and im happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. The chairwoman recognizes mr. Luck for five minutes to testify. Can you make sure your microphone is on . Chairman mcsally, Ranking Member 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 the border. Our border parole operationsare continuously challenged by evolving tactics and individuals. We use sophisticated technology, a critical element in our layered border strategy to enhance our situation awareness and detect changes in threat levels and flows across the border. Thanks to the support of this subcommittee, we continue to deploy Capability Technology resources to decrease our technology along the southwest border and more efficiently, effectively and safely respond as appropriate to potential threats. With enhanced detection, Border Patrol agents can control remotely and warn of any other additional danger otherwise unknown along the way. As a result, these investments increase the Border Patrols visibility on the border, our operational capabilities and the safety of our Front Line Law enforcement personnel. As many know, the terrain along the border between the United States and mexico is extremely diverse, con sigs of deserts, mountains and urban areas, tailored to address areas risk environmental changes, cvp deploys a combination of fixed, mobile and relocatable assets with short, medium and long range persistent surveillance technologies to maintain Situational Awareness of the varying environments. For example, integrated fixed towers deployed along the border in arizona provide a long range surveillance. These tower systemsautomatically detect items of interest and provide operators with video and location of suspected items of interest for identification and appropriate action. Remote Video Surveillance systems are another fixed Technology Asset used by the u. S. Border patrol toprovide surveillance in select areas along the southwest and northern borders. These systems send video to a control room and enable the Border Control to detect, identify, classify and tract targets effectively. Mobile technology mounted on vehicles or carried by agents is used in conjunction with fixed assets and provides the border parole flexibility toaddress threats. Stats and relocatable towers acquired as part of the department of defense have also proven to be a vital assets in improving Situational Awareness and our ability to detect, identify and track illegal cross border activity. Mobile Surveillance Technology systems position the technology where it is needed at a specific moment, extend our capabilities and increase the accuracy and speed of our response. In addition to the use of 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 work closely with our partners, especially air and Marine Operations as well as multiple dhs federal, international, state and local lawenforcement agencies. Technology is critical to the Border Security operations. A tailored blend of fixed mobile and portable Surveillance Systems that compliment one another and work in conjunction with intelligence, partnerships and tactical infrastructure increases the Border Patrols effectiveness in addressing high risk and seasonal traffic patterns and enables Rapid Response capabilities. Chairman mcsally, Ranking Member, mr. Correa, and distinguished members 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 their hard work to unselfishly protection our nation 365 days a year. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. I think i pronounced your name wrong. The chair now recognizes you for five minutes. Good morning, chairwoman mcsally, Ranking Member and mr. Corea. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the Technology Used in securing our nations borders. A critical component secures the United States from transnational threats includingterrorism, weapons and drug smuggle. Throughout my 22 years in Law Enforcement, first as a Border Patrol agent and then as a pilot, i personally witnessed a significant increase in the development and deployment of technology to aid in the security of our borders. The result of which has without doubt improved our efficiency and effectiveness in fulfilling our Law Enforcement mission. Throughout the use of capabilities including aviation, marine, tethered arrow stats and sensors, we detect and predicts the Movement Toward or across the borders of the United States. Our Technology Assets provide multidomain awareness for our partners and the department of Homeland Security as well as critical aerial and Maritime Surveillance interdiction and operational assistance. The aerial surveillance capabilities are enhanced through recent investments and deployments of fixed wing, rotary and unmanned aircraft. These assets are equipped with a range that provide critical detection capable. Sophisticated sensors greatly increase amos effectiveness encountering elicit cross border activity. Amo operates the air and marines oermss center which is a stateoftheart Domain Awareness Center and uses advanced Field Operations<\/a> job is to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, while maintaining a list of those who cannot entry enter our country. Also, the supporting element, which provides intervention support. These components rely heavily on technology to accomplish their mission. Technology is a crucible a crucial multiplier, and the right mix of infrastructure, personnel, and technology has worked for the last 20 years. Instead of focusing on the gadgets and gizmos and repeated failures we have had, i think it is important to think strategically about the decisionmaking process. Those who mean to exploit our border for illicit purposes. Destroy that process by using usenology will help better the funding to secure the border in the long term. I want to take a hard look at the Role Technology<\/a> plays in predicting, deterring, and detecting Illicit Activity<\/a> along border. St order it is difficult to measure or accomplish. Discouraging bad actors from crossing the batter the border is our best defense. Isentially, deterrence predicted on two things. First, the perception that illegal smuggling is a costly endeavor, and second that the likelihood of success is low. But if we cannot successfully then we have to shift to detection, surveillance, and intervention. That is where the role of Technology Becomes<\/a> indispensable with the rugged border. And the lack of infrastructure on both sides of the border and security posturing and in the area should inform the to we used to monitor and surveilled the border. On a consistent basis, this is the Situational Awareness<\/a>. The goal is to maintain operational control of the camera, xray devices, and other surveillance equipment have become and said essential elements. The seven hands officer safety, provide a constant monitoring, and enhanced ability to deter criminal activity. Other technology has also helped reposition and redeploy assets as vulnerabilities shift click. I look forward to the progress update in light of the additional Funds Congress<\/a> has provided for this effort. A secure border is an outcome the American People<\/a> demand, regardless of the steps we take to get there. Congress has repeatedly asked one confidential consequential question. What will it take to gain control of the border . Up until the answers have been limited or unsupported. They have been unsufficient. At best they have been some best guesses. Congress expects the border parole and air and marine to be able to justify the tech any logical needs required to secure the border. So far, they have been involved in an effort called c gap. It is a scenario based exercise designed to fair out tactical weaknesses and hopefully inform the tech logical budget process. Thanks for being here to discuss the many ways in which we could be using technology and i look forward to the witness testimony. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member<\/a>, thesubstitute Ranking Member<\/a> for an opening statement. Thank you. Im pleased to join you for todays hearing examining u. S. Customs and Border Protection<\/a> efforts to enhance Border Security<\/a> with the use of technology technology. The Ranking Member<\/a> cant joinus today due to some other commitments, so im happy to step in in his stead. Over the past several years, we have Seen Technology<\/a> used to improve Situational Awareness<\/a> and to improve commerce across our borders. While secretary kelly and many lawmakers talk about the value of technology to better secure borders, we remain concerned that we are not utilizing technology to its fullest benefits. We know the Trump Administration<\/a> prioritized technology borders. President trump ran for office to build a wall 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<\/a> 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<\/a> not being able to talk to each other using their existing equipment. Ive heard some of these folks tell me they can see eachother two to three hundred yards away. Yet, they cant use some of their walky ki taukie talkies. That is a sad testament. With limited resources for technology on the border, it is important that customs and border get it right when it comes to procuring, testing and employeeing technology along the border. The department of Homeland Security<\/a> has for years attempted to Deploy Technology<\/a> to the borders with mixed results at best. Identifying the right mix of Border Security<\/a> technology isnt easy. But we got to get it right. A million here, a million there translates to a billion here, a billion there and those dollars we can only spend once. Those are very precious taxpayer dollars. We know the Border Crossers<\/a> and elicit traffic changes from daytoday in our technology need to evolve. This is another reason, a primary reason why a border wall, in my opinion, is not a solution to our Border Security<\/a> challenges. Remember, we have two borders and we have two oceans. Americans borders are buried as well with different geogravity and climate. Given the shift to physical barriers over technology, i remain concerned about our Border Security<\/a> and technology deployment. Id like to hear today cbp justify while whole sail fiscal infrastructure plan would be more effective than deploying strategic assets along the border. And the secretary kelly has said here numerous times theborder, rather we need a multilayered defense system. I also hope to hear from our gar witness today about their examination of cvps metrics to measure the performance of border technologies and whether dhss procurement and Acquisition Management<\/a> processes are sound or still need to be improved. Also in light of the mess of Acquisition Management<\/a> resources that would be needed to be dedicated to constructing physical wall, i would like to know how they would manage existing contracts as it shifts to focus on personnel to man the new wall. Finally, i hope we can have a frank discussion about how cvp can best position its ongoing Border Security<\/a> Technology Programs<\/a> for success in this environment of scarcere sources. I thank the witnesses for joining us here today and i yield backmy time, madam chair. Other members of thecommittee are reminded that Opening Statements<\/a> may be submitted for the record. I am pleased to be joined today by four distinguished witnesses. Mr. Todd owen is the executive commissioner for the office of Field Operations<\/a>. Prior to becoming executive commissioner, he served in various roles within the office and most recently as a director of field office. Scott luck began his career in 1986 and serves at acting deputy chief chief. He was the chief of Operations Division<\/a> for the u. S. Order patrol. Dennis serves as the executive director for air and marines oefrmss division. He began his career with cvp in 1995 where he served as an agent and a pilot. Prior to that, we served as the deck tor of air operations strategy. And rebecca is director in the Homeland Security<\/a> and justice team where she leads gaos work in the management and transformation. The witnesses full written statement will appear in the record. The chair recognizes mr. Owen for five minutes. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today alongside mycolleagues from the u. S. Border patrol and air and marines operations to discuss the role of fieldoperations in detecting and interdicting Illegal Drugs<\/a> and other dangerous materials in at our ports of entry. Before my appointment in february of 2015, i served in several relevant roles within cvp. Most recently as director of Field Operations<\/a> for los angeles and previously as executive director. I know firsthand how valuable technology is to cvps able to detect materials that pose a threat to the United States<\/a>. Used in conjunction with cvps risk based capabilities and security partnerships, advanced technology is an essential component in our mission to intercept Illegal Drugs<\/a> and other drugs before they cross our borders. Cvp officers regularly find drugs concealed on individuals, hidden inside vehicle seat cushions, gas tanks and fired, and tires, within hygiene products. In check luggage and in Construction Materials<\/a> transported on commercial trucks. This past weekend, officers discovered and seized 147 pounds of cocaine hidden in the gas tank of a commercial bus. While cvp officers intercepted three internal carriers of heroin and methamphetamine. All passengers were traveling together and entered through the pedestrian lanes. 118 pounds of methamphetamine concealed inside a vehicle. These are examples of threats that cvp officers address every day. To counter the full range of concealment techniques, they maintain vehicle inspection regimes at our ports of entry, including the use of nonintrusive equipment, as well as Radiation Detection<\/a> technology. Nii technologies deploy to our nations land, sea and ports of entry, include xray and imagines systems as well as a variety of portable and handheld technologies. These systems enable cvp officers for the presence of contraband withoutphysically opening or unloading them. It is a force multiplier which allows cvp to work smarter and faster, while expediting legitimate trade and travel. In 2016 large scale nii systems were used to conduct more than 6. 5 million examinations resulting in more than 2,600 seizures and over 359,000 pounds of seized narcotics. Cvp has also deployed nuclear and radio logical detention equipment, such as radiationisotope identification devices and personal radiation detectors nationwide. Using radiation monitors, cvp is able to scan 100 percent of mail, 100 of all trucks and personally owned trucks and nearly 100 of all arriving maritime ice cargo for the presence of raidiological or nuclear materials. Advancements in cargo, convince and vehicle Screening Technology<\/a> increases their ability to detect and interdict drugs and other dangerous materials and continues to be a cornerstone of cvps multilayered strategy. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and im happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. The chairwoman recognizes mr. Luck for five minutes to testify. Can you make sure your microphone is on . Chairman mcsally, Ranking Member<\/a> 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 the border. Our border parole operationsare continuously challenged by evolving tactics and individuals. We use sophisticated technology, a critical element in our layered border strategy to enhance our situation awareness and detect changes in threat levels and flows across the border. Thanks to the support of this subcommittee, we continue to deploy Capability Technology<\/a> resources to decrease our technology along the southwest border and more efficiently, effectively and safely respond as appropriate to potential threats. With enhanced detection, Border Patrol<\/a> agents can control remotely and warn of any other additional danger otherwise unknown along the way. As a result, these investments increase the Border Patrol<\/a>s visibility on the border, our operational capabilities and the safety of our Front Line Law<\/a> enforcement personnel. As many know, the terrain along the border between the United States<\/a> and mexico is extremely diverse, con sigs of deserts, mountains and urban areas, tailored to address areas risk environmental changes, cvp deploys a combination of fixed, mobile and relocatable assets with short, medium and long range persistent surveillance technologies to maintain Situational Awareness<\/a> of the varying environments. For example, integrated fixed towers deployed along the border in arizona provide a long range surveillance. These tower systemsautomatically detect items of interest and provide operators with video and location of suspected items of interest for identification and appropriate action. Remote Video Surveillance<\/a> systems are another fixed Technology Asset<\/a> used by the u. S. Border patrol toprovide surveillance in select areas along the southwest and northern borders. These systems send video to a control room and enable the Border Control<\/a> to detect, identify, classify and tract targets effectively. Mobile technology mounted on vehicles or carried by agents is used in conjunction with fixed assets and provides the border parole flexibility toaddress threats. Stats and relocatable towers acquired as part of the department of defense have also proven to be a vital assets in improving Situational Awareness<\/a> and our ability to detect, identify and track illegal cross border activity. Mobile Surveillance Technology<\/a> systems position the technology where it is needed at a specific moment, extend our capabilities and increase the accuracy and speed of our response. In addition to the use of Surveillance Technology<\/a>, collaboration and information sharing with our Law Enforcement<\/a> partners is a key component of building Situational Awareness<\/a> and response capabilities along our southwest border. We work closely with our partners, especially air and Marine Operations<\/a> as well as multiple dhs federal, international, state and local lawenforcement agencies. Technology is critical to the Border Security<\/a> operations. A tailored blend of fixed mobile and portable Surveillance Systems<\/a> that compliment one another and work in conjunction with intelligence, partnerships and tactical infrastructure increases the Border Patrol<\/a>s effectiveness in addressing high risk and seasonal traffic patterns and enables Rapid Response<\/a> capabilities. Chairman mcsally, Ranking Member<\/a>, mr. Correa, and distinguished members 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<\/a> Border Patrol<\/a> for their hard work to unselfishly protection our nation 365 days a year. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. I think i pronounced your name wrong. The chair now recognizes you for five minutes. Good morning, chairwoman mcsally, Ranking Member<\/a> and mr. Corea. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the Technology Used<\/a> in securing our nations borders. A critical component secures the United States<\/a> from transnational threats includingterrorism, weapons and drug smuggle. Throughout my 22 years in Law Enforcement<\/a>, first as a Border Patrol<\/a> agent and then as a pilot, i personally witnessed a significant increase in the development and deployment of technology to aid in the security of our borders. The result of which has without doubt improved our efficiency and effectiveness in fulfilling our Law Enforcement<\/a> mission. Throughout the use of capabilities including aviation, marine, tethered arrow stats and sensors, we detect and predicts the Movement Toward<\/a> or across the borders of the United States<\/a>. Our Technology Asset<\/a>s provide multidomain awareness for our partners and the department of Homeland Security<\/a> as well as critical aerial and Maritime Surveillance<\/a> interdiction and operational assistance. The aerial surveillance capabilities are enhanced through recent investments and deployments of fixed wing, rotary and unmanned aircraft. These assets are equipped with a range that provide critical detection capable. Sophisticated sensors greatly increase amos effectiveness encountering elicit cross border activity. Amo operates the air and marines oermss center which is a stateoftheart Domain Awareness Center<\/a> and uses advanced Surveillance Systems<\/a> to detect threats to homeland and cord nar their interdiction. They also combat airborne and maritime smuggling with an integrated long range radar architecture and elevated radars deployed on tethered arrow stats. Across our entire program, they contributed to more than oh arresting was 55,000 apprehensions and the interdiction of cocaine in 2016. Amo lends capabilities to a innovator of federal partners chewing the u. S. Coast guard and United States<\/a> navy by conducting counter narcotic operations in the southeast coastal and source and transit zones. We are the leading providing of airborne detection and monitoring to the joint interagency taskforce south. We also provide direct assistance to partner nations with a shared interest in Border Security<\/a>, most notably mexico and canada. Moving forward we will continue to work with cvp and other partners to enhance detection and investigation and intercept v interdiction capabilities to address emerging threats and protect americas security interests along the border in source and transits teams in our own customs water within the nations interior. Chairwoman mcsally appear distinguished members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i like forward to answering questions. Thank you. The chair recognizes miss gambler to testify for five minutes to testify. Good morning rk chairwoman, Ranking Member<\/a> and members of the subcommittee process. I appreciate the to testify oh discuss gao work on dhs efforts to acquire and deploy various technologies along u. S. Borders. Dhs has deployed a innovator of assets to secure the border. Including various land based surveillance technologies gao has report oped dhs smanagement and oversite of the surveillance technologies under the former secure Border Initiative<\/a> and the departments more recent plans. My remarks today will summarize some of gaos past reports as well as some preliminary observations from ourongoing work for in subcommittee on cvps various surveillance technologies. More specifically, cvp has made progress in deploying technologies along the border this includes fixed and smoebl Surveillance System<\/a> agent and portable baseds and these technologies have aided the Border Security<\/a> efforts as of july cbp has completed dpoimt of technologies to arizona abtexas and california. For example cbp has reported deploying all manned remote Video Surveillance<\/a> systems or rvss and mobile surveillance capability systems or mscs to arizona. Cbp has alsoreported deploying 15 of 53 prans integrated fixedtowers oh or ift to arizona and cbp has deployed all planned msc systems to california and texas. And although they made this progress we have also reported that cbp could do more to strengthening management of Technology Programs<\/a> and better assess the contributions of surveillance technologies to Border Security<\/a> efforts. For example, cbp has previously experienced delays in some of its Technology Programs<\/a>. We have also previously reviewed cbps scheduleds and life cycle cost estimates por the r programs. And we compared these schedules and estimates to best practices. Overall the schedules and estimates for the program reflected some but not all best practices. And we found that cbp could take further action to better ensure reliability of schedules and cost estimates by more fully replying best practices. Cbp has taken steps toward addressing recommendations in these areas. Such as providing us with updated schedules for some of the College Programs<\/a> which have showed notable improvements inquality. We are continuing to review cbps schedules and estimates as part of the ongoing work for the subcommittee. Further cbp has identified the mission benefits of surveillance technologies such as improved Situational Awareness<\/a> and agent safety. Cbp has also begun requiring Border Patrol<\/a> to record data within the database on whether or not an assets such as a camera, assisted in an apprehension or seizure. These are positive steps toward helping cbp assess the contributions of the surveillance technologies to Border Security<\/a>. However, cbp needs to gefl and implement pormds measures and analyze data its collecting to be able to fully assess the contributions of technologies to Border Security<\/a>. In closing we are continuing to examine cbps use of technologies for Border Security<\/a> as part of our ongoing work. We will also continue to follow up on actions taken by cbp and in response to recommendations for improving management and measurement of the agencys land based surveillance technologies. In concludes my oral statement and im happy to answer any questions members have. Thank you, miss gambler. Now i recognize myself for five minutes for questions. Chief luck and director michelini. Air assets are a critical part of the Technology Integrated<\/a> to build Situational Awareness<\/a> for both operational level but also tactical level. And air has been critical in the tucson sector but we have lost a bit of the air capability in that sector and we understand we are going to lose some more in the future here. And i understand there is increased activity in other sectors. But still 50 of the marijuana comes through the tucson sector especially in the hot summer we have a number of of deaths in the desert and the air assets are critical to getting to people before they before its life threatening. Could you share what the impact has been of decrease in air in the tucson sector and any plans you have to further decrease it . Because this is a concerns of ours. We have made gants and we feel we are potentially going to welose some more air. As far as flight hours, is that what your concern is. Flight hours and assets. Ok so we execute about 95,000 flight hours a year thats been a pretty consistent number with us. There has been more movement. As tucson has gained a moreof a control of the border than it was 10 years ago, when the flight hours were much higher than they are right now, but in a process of the of actually tucson and them getting ahold of and more maintenance of their border we have seen a shift in flees to south texas. There has been a movement of flight hours and funding towards the south texas area. I dont necessarily foresee arizona to drop any further than it is right now and i dont believe that this drop in any way shows a lack ofinterest from air and marine into that area. Tucson as it is is the largest branch we have. I would probably say the agents are somewhere around 80 total. It mass more air assets than anybody else and also fries more than anybody else. Its still its a center kogt st kog in the iefrt. The ufrmt as flies out tlf at our office having more flight hours than any other m we have blackhawks that colorado fly, citations for air diktens and so as 350s small fixed wing aircraft. It is a hub to for us in the southwest region. Chief luck do you have any comments on that . I would just add based on your Opening Statements<\/a> that we are testing other things,other Unmanned Aerial Systems<\/a> to fill a gap and we are going to test some small uas in arizona here coming next month. So that is a gapfiller too for needed air requirements in Southern Arizona<\/a> and south texas and were also testing enemy in vermont to see the capability. So we have come quite a long ways with regard to suas and filling gaps in airrequirements. Great, thanks. Continuing on the air discussion, the vader technology has been helpful but the feedback that we get when i go and visit is often times there is several limit aces obviously to the Unmanned Aerial Systems<\/a> when they fly and when the information is available. And we have talked several times since ive been the subcommittee chair about pushing forward to also have the capability on manned aircraft. I know you are piloting that pardon the pun can you an update on the process of getting the vader technology on manned aircraft to provide more flexibility . Well first let me say that we are we are hoping to span the uas compare in seer roadway vista. We are close to movinginto ha 24 by 5 operation when you probably visited throughout the year it was a 16 by five. So you know what happens with weather for that is we do exactly as you mentioned before you get affected by weather tor both takeoffs and landing if we move to 5 by 24 model we can launch and recover around the weather patterns. We have done experiments with that on 24 by 5 and we get massive bumps in flight hour ability availability. Thats the plan Going Forward<\/a> as far as putting the vader on manned assets. That is a bit out. Thats those are a few years out from having that available. Thats not lk being piemted. It is its being piloted there is but nothing physical. So the time linefor knowing whether thats a possibility or youre saying is several years. I dont believe it could be seven years. Several, not disbelieve no can i get you a a better time line on that. Absolutely no this is something we have been interested in for a while. It would be helpful to understand the plan for that and the timing for testing eefrlgs all that. So were going to have a second round here im running out of time. Now ill recognize mr. Correa for five minutes. Thank you madam chair. Miss gamble era couple of question zblos what were the lessons from the failed sbi net, has cbp fixed the management cost and schedules problems that led to the failure of sbi net . And could we see more of the same with ongoing and future cbp Technology Acquisitions<\/a> . Sure ill answer the middlequestion first if thats ok. Either way. The costand schedule. We have seen improvements, particularlyin cbps schedules for some of the different be land based surveillancetologies. So thats been a positive step toward addressing recommendations. In ternls of the life cycle cost estimate pesk being electric foi thervss program, cbp and dhs have worked to conduct an independent life cycle cost estimate. And tried toreconcile that to the cost estimate that cbp has forthe rvss and well be working with cbp to getdocumentation of that and take a look at it. So we have seen progress being made on both schedules and estimates. And that progress is really positive. In terms of the broader question, Ranking Member<\/a>, aboutLessons Learned<\/a> and steps Going Forward<\/a>, i think thereis two key themes or Lessons Learned<\/a> from our work looking at cbps Technology Programs<\/a>. The first is that its important for cbp to make sure the the Technology Programs<\/a> go through the dhs cbp hasnt always ensured that Technology Programs<\/a> moved through that process consistently. They need to apply the ac which wigs management process consistently to Technology Programs<\/a>. And secondly as i mentioned inthe oral statement, its important for cbp to put in place the metrics weve been recommending several years now. So they can really assess what weregetting out of the investments in technologist. Those are the two things we see as Lessons Learned<\/a> areimportant for cbp to focus on Going Forward<\/a>. Thank you. Miss gambler, a recent gao report concluded that wbp lacked the metrics necessary to show whether or how the existing border wall contributes to Border Security<\/a>. Does it make sense to move forward withthe multibillion dollar wall before cbp can show what kind of return the american taxpayers would get on their investment if any . Is it possible less costly to have less ins trucive Border Security<\/a> measurings that would be more effective. Ranking member that question gets at two key findings from gao work oninfrastructure and technology along the border. The first is we do think its important to cbp to put metrics in place for taqle infrastructure to include the fencing thats been deployed as well as technologies that ive mentioned. The other important theme from our work is and we have reported on previously as itrelates to technologies is the need for cbp to be ableto document the investments its making and why its choosing to put certain technologies or assets incertain 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 followupcomment, 20 years ago in los angeles a seizure of 2 billion of cash and drugs occurred. Semi truck stop, regular coming in and dropping off tons of drugs. Those were not going you know through the terrain. They were going through the border, bordercheckpoints. Yesterday san antonio, texas, about 20 undocumented individuals in a semi. And so my point is youve got a wall, yet youve got most of the traffic according to most of the folks ive talked to at the border, through the checkpoints kissing border checkpoints. So you know those are my questions. Youinvest on the border or do you invest a better xraymachines at the Border Crossing<\/a> 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 negatives oninformationon plans so he congress and Decision Makers<\/a> can evaluate and determine what would be the most effective use of resources. I think youre asking a very important question about. Echnology and infrastructure thank you madam chair. The chair recognizes mr. Smith for 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. Youre on the front lines, you know first hand whats going on. Mr. Luck, before i address some questions to you, let me preface the questions by saying that when i was first elected i represented over 10 miles of texas mexico border. And that sort of riveted my attention on the particular subject. And over the years ive seen some examples of what works and does not work. And we all know we need a combination of physical structure, personneland technology. In san diego, for example you have a double fence that has succeeded in stopping illegal immigration by about 95 . Years ago i know you were inthe el paso seccer chief operations but former member of congress was once the border section chief in he stationed Border Patrol<\/a> agents very close together. Yearst know if it was 100 but it was, personnel stepped he dopd illegal immigration almost entirely. That was an example that worked. I know in texas a number of years ago we tried at greatcost a virtual fence. And basically had to abandon it inpart because of vandalism by the illegal immigrants, inpart because of false positives by the sensors and in part because we didnt have enough Border Patrol<\/a>agents backing up the technology. I know technology improved since then i guess im saying that there are parts of the border that lend themselves more to one than 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 Technology<\/a> along the border. Thank you for the question, sir. It depends on the terrain and it depends on the threat. In the urban areas we want to have something is that slows down the volume, the traffic flow. To have a persistent and impedeens and denial sfm such as barewraer but that doesnt work on its own. Its part of a package that we are concentrating on as part of our new strategy as it relates to the executive order and as it relates to operational control. The first part ofthat is of course the impedeens and defile, the deterenens and so forth. And then we have the domain awareness. Thats knowing what were going to do and what assets thats the technology piece the access and mobility and having direct access to the borderand roads appear 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 were looking for. And that depends on the location and the threat. And so in california as you mentioned, thephysical barrier helps stop the flow. Helps displays thetraffic so that we have we can use Technology Asset<\/a>s, Situational Awareness<\/a> to detect that trafficand then bring it to a Law Enforcement<\/a> resolution. Would it be accurate to summarize what you just said as saying that in the urban areabes and high traffic areas a physical structure isnecessary and other areas maybe it would be moretechnology than physical structure. That is accurate, sir, that is exactly what it is. And last week the president said something along the lines of 700 to 900 hundred miles of physical structure along the beard roughly its a 2,000 mile bored on the southern part of the United States<\/a>. But we have some fencing inplace obviously. Some single, some double, some concrete. But with that 700 to 900 sound about right where we need a physical structure. To be honest wehavent gotten that far in determining what the years to follow will give us. Base on the budget. We do have is a plan for 17, a plan for 18 and then a plan for 19 to 23. Lets take the outside plan 19 to 23. How manymimes of physical structure are anticipated by then. We dont have the number yet. You dont. That is something were still developing. Ok. And there is a lot of variables going into that. As we put impedeens and denial on the border and other systems to back it up it may have a a trend of Different Things<\/a> that will happen as a result. The adversary does have a vote in this. And so we dont want to put specifically from point a to point b if the need isnt there. I understand. If you look at the urban areas and if you look at the high traffic areas youre going to come up with several hundred miles i dont know exactly what it would be either. But clearly there is a role for the fencing sometimes double fencing which has worked particularly well on the southern border. Absolutely, sir. That as well as in some areas a patrol area that is in dween, right. Right, correct. Thank you mr. Luck. Thank you madam clair. Thank you. The gentleman yields, the chair recognizes ms. Barragan. Thank you. Mr. Michelini. I represent theport of los angeles. And drones are becoming moreprevailants in personal around commercial use. Soms img tomkowiak in the sensitive entry points how is cbp dealing withsecurity issues the drones present at ports and is cbp working with a tsa and local Law Enforcement<\/a> to address this problem . Cbp is working with with thefa. A on drones. Those small those small drones are still mostly an faa concern. The lower those aircraftarent supposed to fly above 500 photo so they can sort themselves out the from from a manned aircraft. Specifically around ports of entry im not really im not up to speed on what any kind of cvp action haves done in that regard. Ok. Does anybody else on the panel want to add anything to that or kind of address if there is any jurisdictional issues that need to be resolved. No im not aware of any jurisdictional issues but i aware that in the ports and Critical Infrastructure<\/a> we do work closely with the local Law Enforcement<\/a> to respond to any information that may be you know indicate that there is a drone activity in the area. But im not aware of any jurisdictional issues. Ok. Mr. Scott im sorry mr. Luck what cybervulnerabilities has cbp identified in the arizona Border Technology<\/a> plan and whats thecbp cybersecurity plan for the southwest Border Technology<\/a> plan. Could you repeat that please. Sure what cybervulnerabilities has cbp identified in the arizona border Surveillance Technology<\/a> plan, the atp . And what is cbp Cybersecurity Strategy<\/a> for the southwest Border Technology<\/a> plan . I would have to get back to you on that. I dont have an answer forthat question. Ok. You could follow up that would be great. Absolutely. Right. Ok. Lets mr. Luck, does cbp have the documented plan or strategy to achieve Situational Awareness<\/a> along our borders . Yes, maam. And we get that through our resource or requirements management process. And part of that is the c gap p capability gap assessment process that we use to bring in what the gaps are in coverage and what gaps are needed to be filled. Along the border. And then from there en thats ha bottom up approach. From there we decide the best course of action. Whetherthats surveillance, technology, or whether thats a system or physical barrier. Ok. And miss gambler, in march of 2014 the gao reported that the cbp schedules and life cycle costs estimates for the arizona border Surveillance Technology<\/a> plan and its three highest cost programs which represented 97 of the planstotal estimated costs, met some but not all best practices. Gao recommended that cbp ensure schedules and cost estimates more fully address best practices. Such as validating costs estimates, with independent estimatesand dhs concurred. What more remains to be done. Yes, congresswoman. The schedules themselves cbp has provided us with updated schedules and have shone significant improvements in quality. So we are continuing to look at those schedules to determine the extent to which they the revised schedules meet the intent of the recommendation. As it relates to the life cycle cost estimates, i want to talk about theestimates for two Different Program<\/a> was the rvss andifts for the rvss the dhs and cbt drchlt hs theconduct a independent logic cycle estimate for cvss and has been working with wcbp to reconcile the two estimates. Will be obtaining follow up drumgs fromkrfrmt bp and dhs on the effort and can certainlyfollow up with you after we have had a chance to look at that and make our own analysis for the ifts we havenot sienna cbp has yet done an independent life cycle cost estimate for that program. And in line with whatwe recommended we think its important to do so. Do you have an estimate of a time line on when this mightbe done and we have Something Back<\/a> . With regard to us looking at the the independent life cycle cost estimate and the reconciliation with the rvss will be were actually following up with cbp now on that. Hopefully we can get back to you on that protecty quickly. Thank you. I yield back. The chair recognizes mr. Hurd from texas for five minutes. Thank you chairwoman for your focus on this important issue and id like to echo my colleagues and thanking the panelists for being here with 820 miles of the border i recognize the difficulty of yalls task having aspen nine and a half years as a undercover offers including weapon prohifr eighters you name it, irecognize how difficult it is to secure the border. I was just proud that one of my first my first bill signed into law was something helping Border Patrol<\/a> agents make sure pay wasnt cut. This is something very important to me. Its 2017. And i think we as a government should have done a better job of helping yall deploy your technology along the border to do your jobs. And i guess my my first question is and maybe this goes to you first, mr. Luck and mr. Owen, if you have opinions id welcome that as well. Currently right now how is Computer Vision<\/a> being used in Border Security<\/a> . Computer vision. Yes, sir. Could you help me address that . Sure. You know we have these fixed towers. We have sensor technology. We have all in data thats coming in. Are we using automated tools in order to determine whether the movement of something is dangerous or is something that requires interdiction by Border Patrol<\/a>. We i mean were doing some predictive stuff as you may know we are using our partner did we have agents assigned to extend our borders and were using systems with our partners in Different Countries<\/a> tohelp to predict what the traffic flows will be. Those are 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 has evolved to come commenting on miss gambler he is compensates how we track the assets we use that has been implemented into the e 3 system system. We are using a lot there is a lot of data coming in. The the intelligence agents that are out there have have anapparatus in either the sectors or at the headquarters through operation through our office of intelligence to be able to coal eight the dat they get and the intelligence. Gotcha. And so so how much how much of the Current System<\/a> auto matesdetection . This this day and age we deploy any numberof lidar, radar, fiber optic table to detect a bunny rabbit from a human. And we should shall able to auto mate that event to where a computer can tell us it wasa bun in i rabbit or a deer or cow. I hope we can say its a cow with fever tick or not in south texas. Is that being done. As far as systems we have with integrated fixed towers in many so of the mobile surveillance capabilities that is being done. We have multiple layers. You have the radars. Then you have the camera florida skew to the movement and an alarm that goes off in the control room that will is a say intsz of 100 camera that is an officers or agent has to look if there is analarm that says there is incursion and skews over and helps with that. Thats the automation were looking for we have bjork to do so it all talks together withalm the systems we have amongst the components but naesway what were. Do you have of an integratedpicture back at headquarters or does the joint Task Force West<\/a> have an integrated picture down in san antonio on the southwestern border . They dont have an integrated picture they can cue to to look at the activity. Gotcha. And see that. And does theindividual agent on the ground i was recently in delrio humping through some cane. Its not a pleasant experience, especially at 105 degree weather. Does if there was a detection event, does that individual agent that may be patrolling that part of the sector do they get notification themselves . Yes. Through our icad system. And is that a walkie talkie whats the icad system . The system is the system they use in dispatch. When ansensor underground sen sensor goes off it will hit they call it out the agent can respond thats what they use. Madam chair are we going to have another right now. Yes. Ok great i yield back the time i do not have. Gentleman yields back we are starting a second round. I want to continue on with the line of questioning Situational Awareness<\/a> to the actual agentis something give been pushing on. If we are bringing information together but its back in the Operations Center<\/a> but the person out on the ground toents have that you dont want to overload them with information but decision quality information for themis key. And get nag over voice is not oi deal. You knowgiven the technology that we have similarly, the mobile surveillance cameras last time i was out there wefrptalking about just the person at the truck has the Situational Awareness<\/a>. So what sort of initiatives are ongoing relatedva tc bringing the data and information together in a fused way but then also providing appropriate negative informationfor the agents to their sa is increase ds as theyre theyre out there putting in re lives on the line. One of the things we are weissinger with now ant platformwere using is tracking sign cudd cutting and modelling system. When an event takes place automatically we the ago calls in hey ive got a sign of three that im working all the automatically that starts a track eithergeospatial track or geolocater track. Where the agent is and what he is doing. What it does is fills in the gaps and other technology can be used to assist him in thatarena. And so theyre doing it a lot and it tracks what the movements are, what technology is utilized and things can be used. Now what we want to do andthat then transfers over when the agent makes anarrest. That transfers over to the e 3 processingsystem so it can be used to capture all the event that took place. When the agent is still promptly getting information by voice is the point. Right. Is there any sort of requirement or something in the works for blue force tracking, again some sort of i pad like wrist watch like Situational Awareness<\/a> for the agent . We had a friendly fire death in our sector. You know thattious just build Situational Awareness<\/a> they can see wherethe good guys bad whys whats going on its not justthe guys in the airconditioned op center seeing that. We know thats a gap. Were trying to do that. Some of that is gaps in communication. And having access tosystems that track that like a downrowedown screen. We are use going in some areas por suas for example. The agent has the ability to see what a with the suassees. But as far as the ability to have something on them that can can be used to track it there iscrommes issues with that and there is expense. Blueforce tracking of course has to be negotiated with theunion. To try to get that as part of the picture. So what youre saying is there is no requirement or you know Technology Development<\/a> in its process orfunded to specifically provide increased situationalawareness to the agent on the ground . Like youre talking about ideas we dont have a program or system or requirement thats moving any of that forward right now . Not that i know of, maam to be honest with you. Following up on the tactical uavs you talked about it. Can you give me an update on the testing in arizona upcoming where are you doing that. Ok what we have done with the uav is we workedwith partnership with air and marine. Yeah. We have mou in place with the federal aviation administration. We can test those. We have bought a suite of different capabilities, one being the quad captorer that can be up in the air for about 30 minutes or so. The other is a raven type where it can be longer distance for longertime. Can we follow up to where you are doing that in arizona . Absolutely. Are you considering a Cyber Security<\/a> element to that . And if they can be easily jammed or intercepted . Some of the things going on in Silicon Valley<\/a> to help with the centers and so forth. Arizona, we do have a very robust uab training capability. They have been wanting to partner with you arizona, all. Bureaucracyy in the is talking to the people but we would like to follow up with that. So you are not reinventing the wheel if there are training capabilities already. Youre up for another four minutes. Thank you. To ms. D to get back gambler. I didnt quite understand your answer when they had the matrix to affect the existing border wall and possibly a proposed border wall. Havep does not currently metrics in place to assess the contribution that existing sensing is making to Border Security<\/a> efforts. That is what we reported on in our report earlier this year as the recommended that cbp put in place those metrics to include using the existing data a have to be able to assess what contributions they are having to Border Security<\/a>. Thank you. Question to the panel. As chair of the select committee in california mexico, i took a number of tours of the border area. O, san diego i noticed the california Highway Patrol<\/a> has a station there. Every semitruck is checked for safety every quarter to make sure that every truck is up to california vehicle code. Number two, every semi is checked for radiation and they are also checked for other possible issues. Is given that you the situation, the investment the state of california has made to ensure the safety of californians, do you have the same relationship with other border states in terms of making sure you share information from california, new mexico, arizona and texas . Sir, i will tell you that all the ports of entry along the southwest border its common to find the state authorities just outside our compound looking at roadrucks for the worthiness, the safety issues as you mentioned. As for this screening that is a , function we perform at the ports of entry every truck passenger vehicle coming into the United States<\/a> is first screened for radiation before it ever can leave the ports. Weve been doing that since about 2002. And again most people arent aware of that activity taking place. We do coordinate with the state Transportation Police<\/a> outside those gates on different activities and things of that nature. So that is a what you see in california is very common along along the mexican border. I assume you do communicate with local state and authorities and in terms of coordinating data to make sure if there is any pattern there is you actually pick them up . In terms of patterns of possible Illicit Activity<\/a>. Patterns we do and we are members of the various task forces working on the southwest border where that information is shared in terms of the tactics what were finding, the trends and things of that nature so i would argue that on the Field Operations<\/a> side im sure on the Border Patrol<\/a> side communication was the state and local norts along the border region is very strong. Secretary kelly has mentioned that right now coordination, cooperation with the mexican norts is actually very good. Again my prior life i took a tour of the southern mexican border. I noticed most of the vehicles coming into mexico from south of mexicoey xrayed a lot of that dat was digitalized sent to mexico city. And i believe it was shared with langley. It added a whole multilayer of defers. Is that relationship still there . Does it exist . Is it expanded . Tell me how are we working with partner attention not only south of the border but around the world in terms of enhanced security as secretary kelly has said, if knows things items get to the border youve already kind of lost. Youve got to interdikt those illicit items before they get to the border. Right well i will tell that you within the office of Field Operations<\/a> we have very strong partnerships at many 52 sea ports around the globe as party of the Container Security<\/a> initiative where with we identify high risk shipments before theyre headed this which. We have partnerships in columbia and panama in terms of narcotics interdiction. The port of entry since ive been in this position very much improved relationship with the mexican authorities to the point that in several locations in arizona we have mexican customs in the u. S. Conducting joint inspections with us as part of a unified cargo inspection process. Reduces some redundancies helps facilitate the lawful trade and travel. Ive been very effective within facilitate the lawful trade and travel. Ive been very effective within arizona. I can speak for the Field Operations<\/a>, the relationship with mexico is very strong and defer to the chief on. Im running out of time so very quickly i would say it would be good to create a matrix to assess how effect that relationship is in stopping and inspecting being effective at the border thank you very much i yield madam a chair. Mrs. Hurd from texas. Thank you, chairwoman. And again mr. Luck, mr. Oyen same question for both of you all, you know take a minute, minute and a half, describe mr. Luck, describe your dream tech scenario for the cbp of tomorrow. My tech scenario would be having the right mixture of based on the threat having the right mixture of technology and we cant did do it alone know piece of technology ever made an apprehension that informs and talks to all of the other component pieces with we have within cbp so that information is shared immediately to all components and agents and officers who need it. That would be my dream scenario. We have systems out there that are stand alone systems that we would need that in my view we need to to have speak to one another and share that information with whatever piece of technology that is so that were not redundant in the efforts and that we know exactly we have the same Situational Awareness<\/a> regarding regardless of who that operating entity is. Good company. And mr. Luck please correct me if im wrong i feel like the existing technology thats being used, there is an overwhelming there is too much of an operating burden on the person using it. We need technology that is a little bit more user friendly. We need to make sure that this is integrated as you say across the various elements, not just within a team within a particular sector but across sectors and even back at headquarters, and as chair william mcsally was saying, getting that information in the hands of the individual agent, whether they are in the vehicle be, on foot, humping threw the cane and that allowing this he them to do what they can do the the hardest part the interdiction. In anything i described am i out of line . Thats appropriate. Good copy. Were get you some to do all this to. Thats why i get frustrated with all the talk about a wall because 24. 5 million a mile thats a lot of money. And you can deploy alt of off the Shelf Technology<\/a> to doway i just described for half a Million Dollars<\/a> a mile. And if we add this out to the additional 1350 miles of border that doesnt have fencing thats 33 million i can use 32 billion of that a lot of other things like give you folks more pay for the hard work they did pop give mr. Michelini more air assets to do what he does. Thats what were trying to with is the idea of a smart wall that Leverages Technology<\/a> that makes sure the men and women of Border Patrol<\/a> doing their thing. Mr. Owen, same question. The technology that really is the cornerstone of our interdiction activities in the ports of entry if the large scale nonsbrusive inspection technology. What we need is technology that has the ability to keep the cargo flowing. On the passenger side we have drive through low Energy Systems<\/a> the passengers travelers can stay in the car as we scan the car safely for the presence of any contraband. Those have been a game changer for us in the passenger rarn arena. We have on the horizontal and working with our science and Technology Director<\/a> and as well as manufacturers is a similar drivethrough systems for cargo. The challenge we have with cargo trucks now is you zblernlly have a Single Energy<\/a> system you have to take the driver out of the cab. You cant use a high Energy System<\/a> on the driver. Thats slowing things down. With those Current System<\/a>s only on about trucks of an hour can be scanned. The technology on the horizon i see as a game changer for cargo inspection is a multiEnergy System<\/a> that you can ratchet downtown to a low Energy Version<\/a> to scan the cab as the driver and cab clears you ratchet up the energy level to high energy to penetrate the cargo. That will allow the trucks to continue to keep moving not having to come to a stop we estimate ten times as many inspections can be done louisiana hour with that technology. Thats great. On the horizon looking at several locations to deploy that we i see thats a game changer for us in terms of interdiction efforts. Chairman woman, i think we should put that on the list. My final question maybe its for you mr. Luck or ms. Gambler, how much money do we spend you know in a year here to this tate on tunnel detection . I dont know how much money we spend. I know we are working a lot with partners and most recent tunnel detection capability. It is a vulnerability and threat that we need to to really think seriously about. Were working with industry. Certainly working with our partners from israel to give us the latest and greatest pef we have an apparatus to get the best technology. We are worried about tunnel detection under physical barriers like the existing fencing we have. Is that correct . Yes, we are. And part of the plan for a future fencing would be to put optics in there to help. I would add i think we may have sop data on that i would be happy to follow up with your office and provide what we have. We will as well thank you all very much thank you for the i would add i think we may dullingment the chair recognizes mr. The chair recognizes mr. Rutherford for five minutes. Thank you, madam chair. I am particularly drawn to the to the circle here the apprehension life cycle as you call it because ive often said the same thing about this wall concept, that you know a wall is not a barrier. Its just an impediment. And what we need is to provide you with the technology that you can detect, track, apprehend and in a secure way these folks are coming over the border. Let me ask, the the technology when we visited the southern border specifically, it seemed like as far as the the ft. Wachuka they had plety Good Communications<\/a> and intelligence going on. Further east of that the rio grand valley didnt seem to be as much in the which of technology being applied. It almost looked like they ran out of money or something and just you know or maybe its just the next phase. But it just didnt seem like the Rio Grande Valley<\/a> was getting the attention that the other areas we observed had mr. Luck can you speak to that, the needs specifically in the Rio Grande Valley<\/a>. Yes, and youre right we didnt have enough attention on that valley because the traffic as was coming through arizona. And so we were our technology laid down and these things take time. And some options take more time than others. Were trying to get arizona under control. Now the focus is on Rio Grande Valley<\/a>. We are trying to Bring Technology<\/a> in there well be bringing technology in there. In the way of remote Video Surveillance<\/a> systems and the ability to do persistent surveillance, we do have the dod reuse tacticalary stats there that have been very railroad good. We have the help from our partners in air and marine with some chl of the systems and sensors they have as far as flight hours. Now trying to concentrate and move into a persistent Surveillance Technology<\/a> relocatable towers. We can do it quicker they have the sophisticated camera systems that will give the agents more Situational Awareness<\/a>. And in that area as you know the caroso cane problem we have to have height to be able to see in that were testing different technologies that will help us get more of a Situational Awareness<\/a> the cane such as foliage penetrating radars and things of that nature to try to test new things that helps us get that better picture. But thats what were recognizing that we need to to have more technology in in the Rio Grande Valley<\/a>. I believe there is a significant increase in the Technology Budget<\/a> to help with that, correct. Yes and we thank this committee for that. And let me ask, because another piece of the life cycle, as you call it, the apprehension phase of that, takes boots on the ground. Absolutely. I mean you just have to have boots on the ground. Its just that simple. Yes, sir. Is there anything we can do to help you all in that process, acquiring more boots for the ground, the training, the recruitment, all of that. Were working diligently with that. Rhm has made advances over 40 improvements if the preemployment process. We are doing things with waivers with dedicated people that have proven integrity with waivers preemployment process. Opet polygraph. And there is a roll. And see helping. Yes and there is a robust efforts towards recutement right now. Very good, madam chair,i yield back. Thank you, the jae yields back im doing one more round if you dont mind. Great. Thank you. Ms. Gamble, you talked about on several hearings we talked about the starting to measure the use of technology in apprehensions norwood to better understand the metrics whether the technology is helping. Do we have any assessments . Weve been talking about this over a year since ive been the subcommittee chair. Do we have any assessments how the technologies are assisting in the apprehensions or do we not have enough time to doing that . Response to the recommendation we made in the report on surveillance technologies from a few years ago, chairwoman, cbp has provided us with one sample of of how theyve tried to look at metrics. And so we have been evaluating that. But we need to see them do it more systematically across the border. And so in order to address a recommendation we really need to see that cwp and Border Patrol<\/a> are looking at this from a more systematic specific sfr. Thanks. Im wondering, mr. Luck the dploit of ifts other technology more recently in arizona, if is there any sort of assessments that shortterm aisments on the effectiveness of that you more recently in arizona, if is dont want coal las vegas to equal causation you dont know whether youre deterring or things arist shing for other owns do you have any feedback on how the ifts are working in arizona. The reports that im getting from the the short time theyve been on live with the last towers in ift in douglas, the view sheds and the area they can cover and the workability of those systems are functioning properly. And its a great asset and a needed asset in the environments. Mscs wsh all the rvss, the refresh we do periodically for the rvss, until we can get to replacement is really working well in arizona and other places as well. Great so that at this point thats anecdotal obviously its good feedback from out there in charge building the situation its going to be helpful to figure out the metrics of the measurement the substitution with the other systems is that fair, ms. Gambler. Thats right. We are happy to you know help provide feedback to cbp on that process as theyre ner developing necrotics thats something we offered in the past. Great. Thank you. Go ahead. Maam, if i could just add on to the status of one of the recommendations from the gao as far as our system e3, our far as our system e3, our Processing System<\/a> and the let ability for agents to use checked downbox as a response to adding technology to the apprehension and processing phase that has been accomplished and is working well. They have a dropdown box that has to be checked regarding what technology and other assets and they can make multiple choices as. Right. As it relates to the apprehension. Thats great. Mr. Owen, you talked about technology maybe on the cutting edge here the multiEnergy System<\/a>. And the the nii technology being helpful but the reality is we still have massive amounts of opioids, synthetic opioids that are killing americans in a crisis level coming through the ports of entry. What other technologies do we need in order to get what we are missing . I know we know what we are getting. We obviously we are obviously missing a lot still because of the epidemic that we have going on in our country. So what else do we need . Yes, its very kalking i mean clearly they hide in the numbers 76 million Passenger Vehicles<\/a> that crossed the South Southwest<\/a> border and another 6 million trucks. Its difficult to respect all of those we rely on intelligence, rely on advanced targeting capabilities, the advanced information that we have and then often times it comes down to the instinct and training of the officers on primary when he sent something is wrong and they send the individualing. The current fent fentanyl we have the fentanyl from china primarily entering through the International Mail<\/a> system as well as the express courier hubs. And the roll is overwhelming in that environment. Ecommerce continues to sky rocket. Were about 360 million parcels last year. And significantly increased this year. So very, very difficult in that environment. And as well as on a southwest border they hide in the numbers. I think we have dedicated men and women using all of the tools that this committee and others provided us. We are effective. But there is stuff that gets through no doubt. Whats your sense actually i think its important for people to realize that coming from china through ecommerce whats your sense of the percentage coming through that versus coming up through the border. Im not sure i have a percentage. I can tell you though that the testing that we have done, the purity of the chinese fentanyl come through the mail i and the express is very close to 100 . It is very, very strong, very deadly. The purity of the fentanyl coming from the southwest border is much less. Still a very significant threat but youve got two different challenge attention that youre dealing with hopefully with the engagement with the International Partners<\/a> well see some review fl that area as well. Thanks for highlighting that time is up the chair recognizes mr. Correa. Thank you, madam chair, very quickly to miss gambler what remains for the done for the agency to measure the effectiveness of the capabilities, is cbp using all of the tools available in the best way possible both for Border Security<\/a> and measuring performance . And i say that from from the following perspective, that we talk about a lot of things we can do at the borders. Small border, inland ports, new technology, that my in my opening remarks i talked about some of the agents not being able to talk to each other. They could see each other but the communication devices werent effective. That reminds me of grenada invasion a couple decades ago. We still have the same situation. Werent effective. That reminds me of grenada meat and potatoes basically investing in common Everyday Technology<\/a> to make the personnel much more effective. MultiEnergy System<\/a> that youre talking about, mr. Owen. I took a tour of a san diego im not mentioning the name of a manufacture in san diego a apparently some delayed some of the systems in the middle east not here but in the middle east yet they were able to detect organics of drugs. You could drive the trucks through and i believe it was 10 to 20 seconds they could fully check a truck if they saw anything negative you pull them over to the secondary inspection. So, again a lot of tools in the tool box. A lot of technology. Yet the meat and potatoes stuff needs to be addressed. Thats where the matrix of measuring what is most Cost Effective<\/a> from the perspective of the taxpayers and Public Safety<\/a> is important. Like the chair pier person was saying right now now youre talking about direct shipments from china directly through the mail. There is another challenge. And i wouldnt know how oh even to address that one. But again these are all the saying right now now youre challenges we have to look at. And where do we invest in and we got to come back to the matrix. Open statement, anybody care to address it . Ranking member, i would add from our perspective and what our work has shone i mean i challenges we have to look at. And where do we invest in and we think there is two kind of key steps that are part of the process. One that we need to to see the department and about set the metrics. We have been recommending metrics in the Border Security<\/a> area for several years. And so theyve actually need to make decisions what they want to measure and set what the metrics are. Then the second step in that is that cbp collects a lot of data as an agency. And certainly what chief luck was describing in terms of them now requiring assets asset the assist information to be able to enter in the database thats a positive step. What they need to do is use the daft rowe data they have systematically to measure relative to the metrics and goals they set. Those are really two key fundamental steps that we think are an important part of this. And assessing what were getting out of the investments any other comments from the others . Thank you, madam chair. I yield. Well with, i appreciate the gentleman yields back. We were just talking here i think there is some of the themes are are worth as were looking towards a Border Security<\/a> bill to consider working together on some of the basing technology and increasing Situational Awareness<\/a> and the port of entry technology. Knows are some of the our do outs as we will follow up towards future legislation. I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony. Its a good discussion. And members for the questions. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses. I think you have some that you took for the record. Respond in writing pursuant to Committee Rule<\/a> 7e. The record will be open for 10 days. Without objection, the committee now stands adjourned. Discussion. On newsmakers, the top democrat on the budget committee. He talks about the 2018 budget and appropriations process which recently included defense spending and funding for the president proposed border wall. 6tch the interview sunday at p. M. Eastern on cspan. Sunday Mark Boughton<\/a> talks about his book. One of the longest and bloodiest battles of the vietnam war. The bottle battle shocked me because the saigon military command was so out of touch with the reality of what was happening, they literally got a lot of Young Americans<\/a> killed because the general denied that the city had been taken. It was a fact he continued to deny it for nearly the whole time the battle was fought. As a consequence, would never concede the sheer number of enemy forces that were in the city. Smaller units of marines and troopers were being ordered to attack provisions that were held by overwhelmingly superior forces in entrenched positions. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on q a. The commissioner of the sec","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800805.us.archive.org\/25\/items\/CSPAN_20170729_055600_Hearing_Examines_Border_Security_Technology\/CSPAN_20170729_055600_Hearing_Examines_Border_Security_Technology.thumbs\/CSPAN_20170729_055600_Hearing_Examines_Border_Security_Technology_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240628T12:35:10+00:00"}