Conservative. And if you look at the size of our budget deficit go back about six years budget deficit peaked out at 1. 4 trillion. And its been coming down since then. Its down by about 2 3. But we still have a big deficit by historical standards. And we need to continue to work on that. Three things, i think, we need to do. We need tax reform that lowers the rates, broadens the base and helps raise money for deficit reduction. We need entitlement reform that serves old people, poor people, frankly saves these programs for our kids. Find way to save money in the entitlement programs so theyll be around for our children and grandchildren. The last thing we need to do is look at everything we need to do and get a better result for less money. Everything we do. Including how to secure our border in a costeffective way. This is going to be a good hearing. Thanks very much. Thank you, senator. Youll enjoy our hearing next week talking about the 30year deficit and those projections and certainly address those issues you were just raising. As i was speaking to the witnesses, again and appreciate your thoughtful testimony and all the time youve put into it. If youre going to solve any problem you really do need the information. Thats really the basis of all these hearings is just to lay out that record. Lay out the reality. A number of times in testimony weve already talked about having the data. Weve had a number of Office Inspector general reports. We had one on an oam and well get into that a little bit later. Just had one issued today on the lack of data driving decisions based on prosecutorial discretion. And deferred action on childhood arrivals. Those are serious issues in terms of not having the information. Id say one of the things frustrating to me this committee has really delved into the whole issue of Immigration Reform and Border Security is just, you know especially as an accountant, as a guy from manufacturing background. Just not having good, solid information and data. Recognizing those, its pretty difficult to obtain that. But we try and do it through testimony, from getting good opinions chief, i do have to start out a little housekeeping because we were made aware, i think earlier today that one of our witnesses border agent Chris Cabrera received notice to appear before a cbp and internal affairs for this thursday. They want to talk to him about his congressional testimony. You know, my lutheran catechism tells me to put the best structure on it. Im hoping the reason they want to talk to agent cabrera is theyre a little concerned about some of his testimony that might vary with, you know, some of the information that we get from dhs in general. Potentially talking about the fact that you know, he testified to us on the got aways. That theres a certain level of, i guess, informal potential intimidation if they report more than 20 people coming through. The only apprehend ten and all of a sudden the supervisors there and providing a lot of scrutiny. Again, im highly concerned about that. We bring people before the committee, swear them in. We swear them in to tell the truth. And im i do hope that this is an effort to you know, understand what his testimony was and try to determine whether there are some real distortions in terms of the information, the data were going to need to solve this problem. I hope i have your commitment and custom border protections management that this is not any kind of intimidation or retribution. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for that observation. The question. It is, in fact, your impression is correct. We were very concerned about chriss testimony. Were very concerned about the numbers. We want you. We need ourselves to have the data to be as accurate as possible. And chris, we work with him very well. We work with the National BorderPatrol Council to the extent that we need to and have to. Theyre good partners they have been for us. And we want their testimony to reflect accurately what happens in the field. And he left the suggestion and impression that there was intimidation or misconduct going on in with regards to how the datas collected. Thats not my impression, im quite sure that the agents and their supervisors and management of the area were chris was discussing are focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons. And so we did, in fact, refer the remarks to the office of internal affairs for getting to the bottom of whether or not there was misconduct in that area. Again, its my impression, thats not what our leadership and our managers do down there. But it helps. Okay. Good. That is very good news. And well be watching that. You know, were talking about all the technologies, the forced multiplier, when we were down on the border. Certainly, we hear the aerostats, only up 60 of the time, which means down 40 of the time. Same with the uavs. Obviously and ill give you a chance to certainly respond to the office of Inspector General report. But do we have any information in terms of what percent of individuals were actually detecting . Or what percent situation awareness do we have . We have secretary johnson here, i think it was two weeks ago. And he made the blanket statement, i appreciate the honesty that is that, you know, by the end of this administration, we will not have achieved 100 Situational Awareness. I understand that. What percent are we at right now . Is there any estimate of that . Can anybody speak to that . I cant be precise as it relates to the Situational Awareness across the 2,000 miles of the southwest border. We do have a very well understood, its very well understood what activity levels are, where the hot spots for activities are and how our deployments support that. So as you know, appropriate for this hearing, the technology is very important. We are the data that we collect as it relates to that activity and our observations and the recording of the outcomes of those individual interdictions feeds information where the assets and the agents give us that realtime information. So in a place like downtown where you visited in downtown brownsville where we do have surveillance technology, a very robust deployment of agents in the downtown environment. So in realtime you can collect information about activity and the results of the activity. The results which includes the people who are rested ran back and what we call got aways. In other locations, we use other methods to try and do that. Theres a lot theres lots of space along that 2,000 miles where we dont have that kind of deployment. So we use things like change Detection Technology to help inform overall. Theres also a piece of Situational Awareness that us having to understand what the capabilities of the criminal network are, how we interact with our fellow Law Enforcement agencies, our International Partners to understand whats happening on the other side of the border, and putting those pieces together along with the observations of people who live along the border that tell us this is out of the ordinary, this is not. If you start to put all of those things together, it gives you an idea of whats happening across the entire border. Okay. But, again, were always looking for some kind of metric. And certainly laws weve passed call for a metric, you know call for a goal of 100 Situational Awareness, 90 of operational control. So the question i have is as long as a lot of laws have been passed that way or thats certainly the idea behind some of these laws. Are we not calculating that . Are we not trying to track that metric now in anticipation of having potentially comply with the requirement for 100 Situational Awareness . So we look at a suite of data that says, these are the arrests arrests we look at things like recidivism, there are other elements were trying to bring in, the secretary is focused on, in the unit of effort of tying the data together. Weve struggled with the idea of combining Situational Awareness. I think its one of those phrases for a title that we seem to all understand. But when you get down to it, how do you measure something with a different connotation for a different environment . So would the position of department of Homeland Security be, then, they would just really reject or certainly resist having piece of legislation where you got that metric 100 Situational Awareness . I think we would all enjoy having a defined set of circumstances that says if you have these four criterion met, you do have Situational Awareness. We think its broader. Its obviously if you have technology, a piece of machinery that surveils the border in realtime 24 7 thats an element of Situational Awareness. There are other pieces to that. It becomes difficult to decide exactly where youre at and what what the actual definition is. But so while were on this topic before i turn it over to the Ranking Member. Anybody else want to comment on this . Ms. Gambler . Weve, as ive mentioned reported on the need for cbp to put in place you know, measures to assess progress made in securing the border. And weve, you know, reported, as well, you were asking questions about sort of estimating flow and things like that. Our understanding and certainly the chief can speak to this perhaps better than i can, but those are those are estimates. When youre talking about things like that. The Border Patrol does record apprehensions. But the other data points that go into estimating flow turn backs and got aways as we discuss are estimated by the Border Patrol. Thank you. Senator, carper . Thank you, mr. Chairman. The time line that i am i have all the time in the world. So im going to yield to my time for a while and maybe i could pick up in a little bit. Thanks. Thank you, senator carper. Following up on the chairmans questions, did any of you have a concise definition for Situational Awareness . Okay. Thats good enough. I would just say, i think before we can even talk about Situational Awareness and how important Situational Awareness is, i dont know what the hell were talking about, you know. And so the next question is is situation awareness a prerequisite for having a secure border . Chief . I believe if we can come to terms on the definition for Situational Awareness, then you can constructively then go from there, recognizing what the data is and say whether you have Situational Awareness or not, and based on the activity levels capability that cbp and others bring then you can leap from there or jump from there or work out from there to that secure border definition. All right. So, moving forward here i think we all want to have a secure border. And, look, if we want to get hung up on terminology we can get hung up on terminology. How many people are getting through and how many people are being apprehended . And how secure is it . How safe is it . And are we spending the money in ways that make sense . Whether its on drones or radar or ground sensors or fences . And so the next question i have, and most of these are going to be to you, chief. But mr. Murkowski you feel free to jump in if you feel and assess the two. Are drones used on the northern border . Yes, sir, they are used on the northern border. In concert with the canadians . No, they are used in conjunction with the Border Patrol, sir. Its not a joint effort . You guys . It is not. How about radar in the northern border . We do pull in all faa radar feeds dod feeds. How about radar under 5,000 feet on a northern border . The coverage is limited. Okay. What about ground sensors . Yes. On the northern border. And those feeds are directly shared across international okay. Thats good. How many miles would you say on a northern border ground sensors are utilized . I could be precise to the record with some data thatd be fine. Each of the sectors. When were talking about a Technology Like drones and ground sensors in particular, less on radar, but when ground sensors and drones in particular particular, is there is there some reduction in manpower when theyre yut liszutilized . Or is that not the case . In making us more efficient . Well, what im saying do you need as many people underground or get by and still have a safe border . Correct. Both the sensors and the aircraft allow for us to do more with fewer. With fewer. Okay. Thats thats good to know. Can you tell me other than sharing the ground sensor information. You know canadas a pretty good ally of ours. Is there anything else you do besides border crossings in a joint way . Yes, under several frameworks by each leadership in the department at higher levels we work with canada in every area as it relates to Border Security. Theres private land public land, theres National Parks, indian reservations. Typically, were on the border everywhere, both private and public land. Theres a recognition from landowner, and within 25 miles, you know, as the job demands yeah. We enter private land. Thats better than i got for information last week. I appreciate that. When you i want to talk about partnerships for a second. I think the Border Patrol did a poor job as far as Building Partnerships and this was eight or nine years ago. Youve improved with highway patrol, local police folks. With ranchers, with farmers hopefully with other agencies, too. Im talking about federal agencies. How do you feel those partnerships are working . And is there anything we can do to make those partnerships work better . We i believe that weve recognized thats part of how were going to be successful in the environments that we work. Having partnerships, leveraging each others authority, exchanging information so that people are recognizing where threats are. Thats always going to be part of the future. Weve adopted that as a way forward. We interact quite a bit with leadership and Law Enforcement, and the stone Garden Program that Congress Gave us several years back after the department was created is a very useful tool for us and is very well thought of by state and local. Could you give me your assessment of Border Security in the indian reservation, for example. I dont want to single those out. With the reservation compared to others areas on the northern border, would you say its equivalent, better, worse . Im not aware of any deficiencies we have specifically. How about with the park . Glacier National Park . Same. We have an ongoing working relationship to be present and understand their concerns as well as being present on the border and patrolling. So the need for additional tools and i dont want to put words in your mouth. Need for additional tools, youve got it with operation stone garden, with the park Service Relationships memorandums, whatever . Correct, we do. Well, i just wanted to say, thank you for your work. All of you. Most of the questions were to ron because i like him, you know. But the truth is i appreciate all your work and youve got people behind you that work very, very hard. And i appreciate them, too. The key is, we have limited money here, at least i think thats across the board. Im not sure its across the board. We have to make sure its spent correctly and appropriately. And i know we might want a knee jerk reaction to things when they happen. But the truth is, if we listen to you folks, i think we make better decisions. Thank you for your service. Senator carper . Thanks. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Sometimes let me just ask, how many of you have testified on this subject before before either a house or Senate Committee subcommittee . Raise your hand. Okay. Mr. Garcia, where you been . Doing your day job . Testifying on other things. Okay. Good enough. If youve been before this committee, probably want to ask you what works. What im going to do is flip that question and ask each of you to give us an idea or two about some things that dont work. And we really shouldnt do that. What are some things you think that dont work . Especially if we had all the money in the rld woworld, getting in debt, a lot more. What are some things we ought not do . You dont think they work . Theyre not worth the money . Mr. Hollis . Good question, sir. Im full of them. Thats my best one today so. Im struggling with that one. In terms of because most of the stuff is, i think that does not work is stuff that we actually stop doing. So one of the things we went through in our own office was to analyze across all of our offices which ones were most effective, most efficient and reorganize our structure based on that. So what we actually look at that pretty regularly yearoveryear to see whats not working and then to either adjust our organization and our assets to rid ourselves of those things. Were in the process of downsizing aircraft. Were getting rid of about 40, 50 aircraft. Reorganizing our offices along the north and the south. So we have our agents in the right places and getting hold it right there. I want you to take a couple of minutes and think about that question. Think about some things that dont work that we shouldnt be doing. Go ahead. Mr. Murkowski . Yes, sir, thank you for that question. I think there are a lot of lessons we learn about things we shouldnt do. For example, we shouldnt Treat Technology or any other Capital Asset as an end. Its a means to an end. And we often get attracted by the bright shiny thing. And we dont think about why or how it will help us do our jobs. Sometimes its diffi