    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       BORDER SECURITY OVERSIGHT: IDENTIFYING AND RESPONDING TO CURRENT
                                    THREATS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 27, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-53

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    82-596 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina   ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                         Columbia
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         JACKIE SPEIER, California
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina               Pennsylvania
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
    DOC HASTINGS, Washington             TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              TONY CARDENAS, California
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida

                       Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
                    John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
                        Stephen Castor, General Counsel
                           Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

        Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
                                   Operations

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts,
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee           Ranking Minority Member
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           JACKIE SPEIER, California
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           PETER WELCH, Vermont
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on June 27, 2013....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Michael Fisher, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, Customs and Border
      Protection
        Oral Statement...............................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     7
    Mr. David J. Murphy, Assisting Acting Commissioner, Customs and
      Border Protection, Office of Field Operations
        Oral Statement...............................................    16
    Mr. Thomas Homan, Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and
      Removal Operations, USICE
        Oral Statement...............................................    17
        Written Statement............................................    20
    Ms. Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice,
      U.S. Government Accountablity Office
        Oral Statement...............................................    28
        Written Statement............................................    30

                                    APPENDIX

    The Hon. Jason Chaffetz, a Member of Congress from the State of
      Utah, Opening Statement........................................    90
    Hearing Question from Member Duncan..............................    93

       BORDER SECURITY OVERSIGHT: IDENTIFYING AND RESPONDING TO CURRENT
                                    THREATS

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, June 27, 2013

                       House of Representatives
           Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland
                        Defense, and Foreign Operations
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m. in
    room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jason
    Chaffetz [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding.
        Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Gosar,
    Gowdy, Lummis, Woodall, Bentivolio, Tierney, Maloney, Kelly and
    Grisham.
        Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Communications Advisor; Daniel
    Bucheli, Majority Assistant Clerk; Sharon Casey, Majority
    Senior Assistant Clerk; Mitchell S. Kominsky, Majority Counsel;
    Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Devon Hill,
    Minority Research Assistant; Peter Kenny, Minority Counsel; and
    Chris Knauer, Minority Investigator.
        Mr. Chaffetz. The committee will come to order.
        I would like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight
    Committee Mission Statement.
        We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First,
    Americans have the right to know that the money Washington
    takes from them is well spent. Second, Americans deserve an
    efficient and effective government that works for them.
        Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
    is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to
    hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have
    a right to know what they are getting from the government.
        We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen
    watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring
    genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy.
        Good morning and I thank everyone for coming to attend this
    hearing which is entitled Border Security Oversight:
    Identifying and Responding to Current Threats.
        I would also like to thank my colleagues who are here and
    the people in the audience for joining us today.
        Much of the current immigration reform debate has centered
    on the importance of border security but the conversation has
    not focused enough on how to secure the border in the most
    effective manner.
        As a result, today's hearing will examine a variety of
    threats to the U.S. border security from illegal entrance to
    drug trafficking organizations to potential national security
    breaches. This hearing will also examine how to measure each of
    these risks and the most effective responses to the threats we
    confront.
        The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for
    controlling and guarding the borders of the United States. The
    Department's operational responsibilities include ``preventing
    and investigating illegal movement across our borders,
    including the smuggling of people, drugs, cash and weapons.''
        The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which intended ``to establish
    operational control over the international land and maritime
    borders of the United States,'' authorizes the Secretary of the
    Department of Homeland Security to take necessary and
    appropriate actions to secure the U.S. borders.
        From 2006 to 2012 the security measures implemented to help
    achieve operational control of U.S. borders have cost U.S.
    taxpayers approximately $75 billion. Despite spending tens of
    billions of taxpayer dollars to secure the borders, the
    Government Accountability Office reported in 2011 that there
    were only 129 miles of the 1,954 mile long southwest border,
    roughly six percent of the border, where border patrols can
    actually ``deter or detect and apprehend illegal entry'' at the
    border itself--six percent operational control.
        The lack of operational control documented by GAO directly
    contradicts statements made by the Administration that the
    border is the most secure that it has ever been. After GAO
    reported low levels of operational control, DHS changed its
    policy to make the number of ``apprehensions'' the measure of
    effectiveness.
        However, the number of apprehensions which DHS uses as its
    metric now does not indicate whether Federal Government efforts
    to secure the border are actually achieving operational control
    or not.
        One of the fundamental questions I have is if the rise in
    apprehensions is increasing, does that mean the border is more
    secure or does that mean the border is less secure? If the
    number of apprehensions is declining, does that mean the border
    is less secure or does that mean the border is more secure?
        I asked the Attorney General this question. Attorney
    General Holder said, you cannot draw a conclusion based solely
    on apprehensions. I asked the Secretary of Homeland Security,
    who didn't really give a thorough answer to that question. It
    is something we need to explore, not to play gotcha but to try
    to come up with a metric that we can all live with. When those
    metrics change, you cannot compare them to past performance.
    That is something we need to explore.
        Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,
    the committee's oversight efforts have examined the effective
    use of taxpayer dollars at the border. While the Department is
    working hard to secure the border, there are examples of
    wasteful spending. For instance, SBInet, which was intended to
    improve video surveillance of the border, has cost taxpayers
    roughly $1.2 billion, but SBInet has been deemed a failure.
        From April 2 to 4 of this year, members and staff of the
    House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, including
    myself, traveled to Yuma, Paco and Nogales, Arizona, to assess
    the Federal Government's most recent efforts to secure the
    border. I appreciate the men and women who we interacted with
    there. We had a very productive trip.
        The committee also visited the Eloy Detention Facility in
    Arizona and was briefed by prison and ICE officials. The
    committee learned that individuals classified as OTMs and how
    the Department classifies people. OTM stands for Other Than
    Mexican and accounted for roughly 900 inmates from 60 different
    countries out of approximately 1,500 in the Eloy Detention
    Facility. In other words more than half of the people in the
    detention facility were not Mexicans, but were from 60
    different countries.
        For those that assume that the border problem is simply a
    problem with Mexico, that is just not true. There is nothing
    statistical that would support that and certainly, if you look
    at the detentions, it is a much bigger and broader problem than
    just people coming north from Mexico. It is a bigger and
    broader problem.
        Based on our conversations with CBP officers in Yuma, and
    Nogales and other cities, there appears to be an increasing
    trend of OTMs moving across the southwest border. A significant
    portion of OTMs are coming from Latin America, including
    Guatemala and Honduras, in addition to India and China, other
    parts in Europe, Asia and other countries.
        Border patrol officers on the ground also told the
    committee about potential problems to our immigration system.
    For instance, it appears the judicial process or asylum
    requests and the government's issuance and administration of B1
    and B2 visas may contain some very serious flaws.
        During our trip to the border, we also found that the
    government continues to identify new and emerging threats to
    secure the border, including the drug cartels' use of semi-
    submersible vessels, ultra light aircraft and the construction
    of underground tunnels. Even right in the heart of Nogales,
    they still recently found another tunnel going right into the
    heart of the city.
        Today, we hope not only to discuss these threats but also
    responses to some of these risks, including the use of
    effective drones, strategic placement of troops and other
    technology which can be successfully implemented along the
    border. Whether through technology or border patrol agents, we
    must allocate the necessary resources to secure the border but
    in a way that is smart, strategic and ensures that we do not
    waste taxpayer dollars.
        I want to emphasize and I commend the work and support of
    our law enforcement officers from the various different
    agencies who do amazing work in exceptionally difficult
    conditions. We cannot thank them enough for their good, hard
    and diligent work. It is tough, tough work.
        Today's discussion should focus on understanding the
    threats to our borders and how we should respond to each of the
    challenges. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses for a
    productive conversation about securing the borders of the
    United States.
        However, I am disappointed that Joseph Langlois, the
    Associate Director for Refugee, Asylum and International
    Operations with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
    has refused to testify before this subcommittee today. The
    committee requested his attendance and participation in the
    hearing 13 days ago on June 14, 2013.
        Despite providing essentially a two-week notice to testify
    before the subcommittee, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services has declined to appear asserting ``Due to the lack of
    sufficient notice to prepare and clear testimony as well as to
    prepare a suitable witness, USCIS will be unable to appear at
    the upcoming June 27th hearing on border security.''
        I want to thank the four other people from the other
    agencies who were able to prepare, who did come and were
    briefed, and who are joining us today. I find it totally
    unacceptable that with 13 days notice, that is not sufficient
    time to prepare to testify in Congress about what you do every
    day and the job and responsibility that you have for your own
    department and agency.
        I thank those who are here. We duly note the person who is
    not here and find that unacceptable. The American taxpayers
    deserve answers to the important questions before the
    subcommittee today. We have left the seat open hoping that the
    witness would appear today but it appears as if he will not.
        Again, thank you to the agencies that are here today. I
    also want to thank and commend my colleague, Trey Gowdy, for
    his work. He is the chairman of the subcommittee that is
    dealing with immigration.
        As we move forward in dealing with the problem that is
    immigration, from a legislative standpoint, it is critical that
    we get the border security portion right. Every bit of
    legislation, whether in the Senate or the House, has always
    focused on how are we going to secure the border, how do we
    assure the American people that the border is secure?
        There has been legislation that was passed in 2006 that
    supposedly dealt with securing the border and the fence, yet we
    have only 6 percent operational control. Earlier, we passed
    legislation that would ensure a viable entry/exit system. We
    have none. That is a problem and we need to discuss that today.
        I look forward to Congress tackling immigration reform. It
    is much needed. We need to understand what is happening at the
    border and we appreciate those who are here today.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Does anyone have an opening statement they
    would like to make? Members may have seven days to submit
    opening statements for the record.
        We will now recognize our first panel: Mr. Michael Fisher,
    Chief, U.S. Border Patrol; Mr. David J. Murphy, Assisting
    Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection, Office of
    Field Operations; Mr. Thomas Homan, Executive Associate
    Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE; and Ms.
    Rebecca Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
    Government Accountability Office. Again, we thank you all for
    being here today.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
    before they testify. Please rise and raise your right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
    about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth?
        [Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. You may be seated.
        In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
    testimony, if you would, to five minutes. Your entire written
    statement will be a part of the record. We will give you some
    latitude, but again, I want to thank you for being here and
    will recognize Mr. Fisher.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FISHER

        Mr. Fisher. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Tierney and
    other distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is indeed
    an honor and a privilege to be before you today to discuss the
    identification and response to current threats.
        As CBP prepares for our 2014 operations, the U.S. Border
    Patrol continues to be guided by the three pillars of our
    strategy: information, integration and rapid response. Current
    intelligence estimates suggest that transnational criminal
    organizations and the networks that support them continue to
    exploit the border in Arizona and south Texas.
        For the first time in over a decade, illegal cross-border
    activity is more prevalent in south Texas than any other
    corridor along the southwest border. Today, activity in south
    Texas accounts for approximately 34 percent of all arrests
    along the southwest border.
        It is also noteworthy to recognize, as the Chairman pointed
    out, that 60 percent of these arrests are of nationals from
    some other country than Mexico. In particular, the top three
    sending countries are Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
    However, the current activity in south Texas needs to be put in
    proper context. Even with elevated activity in Rio Grande
    Valley, the daily apprehension rate is approximately 40 percent
    less than it was in 1997.
        We continue to mature our integrated operations in each
    corridor with our federal, State, local and tribal partners.
    Protecting the citizens against those who would do us harm does
    not begin or end at the border. We cannot achieve border
    security alone.
        As the incremental transition of activity shifted to south
    Texas, we took the following actions. We directed most Border
    Patrol Academy classes and those agents to south Texas,
    increasing the overall agent boots on the ground in high risk
    areas such as Rio Grande Valley. We redeployed approximately
    100 pieces of technology to south Texas from other southwest
    border sectors. These were equipment such as unattended ground
    sensors, global surveillance systems and thermal imaging
    systems.
        As you may recall, we entered into a Memorandum of
    Understanding with the Department of Defense to allow the
    transfer of detection and monitoring equipment from the
    military to CBP. With the draw-down of forces in theater, we
    sought to capitalize on the opportunity to reuse equipment the
    taxpayers already paid for to assist front line agents.
        Accordingly, we recently delivered the first installment of
    this equipment to the field with 224 detection and monitoring
    systems that have been inventoried and sent to the southwest
    border, 75 percent of which went to south Texas.
        In March 2013, we initiated vulnerability assessment
    flights along the southwest border utilizing CBP's Predator
    Beast equipped with synthetic aperture radar for broader
    situational awareness. To date, we have developed more than 80
    target folders covering approximately 320 non-contiguous miles.
    In support of this effort, we continue to leverage geospatial
    intelligence collection to augment our own organic
    capabilities.
        In conclusion, my team has designed and implemented a
    formidable strategy and we continue to learn and adjust our
    tactics, techniques and procedures as conditions on the ground
    dictate. I stand by my convictions that given the operational
    flexibility to match capability to threat, we will reduce the
    likelihood of attack against the Nation and continue to provide
    the requisite safety and security to the citizens who deserve
    no less.
        Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
        I will now recognize Mr. Murphy for five minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF DAVID J. MURPHY

        Mr. Murphy. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Vice Chairman
    Lummis and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
    appreciate the committee's leadership and commitment to
    ensuring the security of the American people and look forward
    to discussing the progress we have made in securing the border.
    We define a secure border at our Nation's ports of entry as a
    well managed border when mission risks are effectively
    identified and addressed and legitimate trade and travel are
    expedited.
        Every day we carry out our mission to protect the people
    and the economy of the United States by preventing dangerous
    people and goods from entering the Country while expediting
    legitimate trade and travel that is the life blood of our
    economy at 329 ports of entry.
        Traffic at our ports of entry differs by environment type,
    which encompasses air, land and sea, traveler or cargo and mode
    of transportation, commercial or general aviation, personally-
    owned vehicles, pedestrians, trucks, containerized, packaged or
    bulk. Each of these environments and activity presents a
    different set of challenges with respect to threats, volume and
    timing of processing.
        Last year, CBP welcomed more than 350 million passengers
    and processed $2.3 trillion in total trade value. We are seeing
    volume increases in all environments and anticipate volume to
    continue as the economy recovers. One of the most substantial
    growths is in the air environment where we have seen a volume
    increase of 12 percent since 2009.
        It is important to note that the vast majority of this
    traffic complies with all rules and regulations enforced by
    CBP. Our goal is to identify and interdict those few travelers
    and shipments that may present a risk while facilitating the
    vast majority of legitimate traffic. We are working to find and
    stop the proverbial needles in the haystack while the haystack
    is moving.
        We continue to improve our ability to do this and to focus
    our finite resources on those people and goods that present the
    highest potential risk. In addition to refining our risk base
    and layered approach to security, we have worked to extend our
    borders outward and to interdict threats before they reach the
    United States.
        DHS, in cooperation with our interagency and Port partners,
    now screens people and goods earlier in the process, before
    boarding passengers or loading cargo onto planes or vessels
    destined for the United States. Since 2009, CBP has expanded
    its pre-departure screening efforts and now checks all air
    travelers against government databases on all flights arriving
    to and departing from the United States prior to boarding.
        CBP has also extended our Nation's borders outward in the
    cargo environment. All inbound cargo manifests are screened
    before they are laden on the vessels with almost 85 percent of
    high risk shipments examined or addressed before arrival at
    U.S. seaports.
        In addition to improving our ability to identify and
    mitigate potentially high risk travel and trade, CBP remains
    focused on identifying waste to facilitate the growing volume
    of people and goods entering the United States. We have seen
    marked facilitation improvements in the development of a series
    of transformation initiatives that increase the speed of our
    processing, including the expansion of the Trusted Traveler and
    Trusted Trader programs, the elimination of paper forms and the
    increased use of technology.
        We will continue to aggressively pursue these strategies
    which both increase security and streamline the border process
    for people and goods.
        These types of programs and enhanced management tools have
    not only increased our ability to facilitate lawful travelers,
    but have also provided significant security benefits. For
    example, we have limited the number of accepted travel
    documents and increased our ability to identify at our land
    ports resulting in a decreased use of fraudulent documents and
    attempts by inadmissible persons to enter through our ports.
        As we refine our targeting and interdiction efforts along
    the southwest border, transnational criminal organizations have
    begun to use unique and non-traditional deep concealment
    smuggling methods using smaller loads to avoid detection. Ever
    improving interdiction efforts by CBP continue to force these
    organizations to attempt a myriad of more costly and often less
    successful smuggling techniques.
        In 2009 and 2010, we focused our agricultural protection
    efforts on increasing interception of our highest agricultural
    risk pests, Asian Gypsy Moths and Caper Beetles. These pests,
    if left undetected, could result in millions of dollars in
    economic damage. In the year following this nationwide
    training, we saw record levels of interceptions and continue to
    maintain those levels of interceptions today.
        The state of border security continues to improve at our
    ports of entry. We have made tremendous progress and are well
    postured against terrorist threats having pushed our security
    measures beyond our immediate borders. We are pushing a robust
    strategy to optimize our current business practices. In short,
    we have maintained and increased our mission effectiveness
    while facing increasing demands for growing passenger and trade
    volume and continue to seek ways to improve.
        Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Tierney, Vice Chairman
    Lummis and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
        I will now recognize Mr. Homan for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF THOMAS HOMAN

        Mr. Homan. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member
    Tierney and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        On behalf of Secretary Napolitano and Director Morton,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the
    significant progress ICE and DHS have made to secure our
    border.
        As you may know, ICE is the principal investigative agency
    within DHS and the second largest in the Federal Government.
    The men and women of ICE play a critical role in securing the
    border and carrying out smart and effective immigration
    enforcement policies.
        ICE consists of three operational programs: Enforcement and
    Removal Operations, ERO; Homeland Security Investigations, HSI;
    and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, OPLA. HSI
    investigates a wide range of crimes that arise from illegal
    movement of people and goods into, within and out of the United
    States.
        I am head of ERO. In this role, I lead a program that
    identifies, apprehends, detains and removes alien subjects for
    removal from the United States pursuant to ICE's prioritized
    enforcement principles. I have been a federal law enforcement
    officer for 29 years, 27 of which have been spent in
    immigration enforcement.
        Over the years, I have seen and worked the entire life
    cycle of immigration enforcement. I have served on the front
    lines as a border patrol agent; I tackled smuggling
    organizations as a special agent with the former INS, and now
    focus on smart enforcement at the back end of the process that
    being removal of aliens from the United States.
        Over the past four years, ICE has focused its resources on
    removal of individuals who fit within our enforcement
    priorities. Those priorities include people who are threats to
    national security and public safety such as convicted
    criminals, recent illegal border crossers and those who
    obstruct immigration controls.
        This focus has led to unprecedented successes. Last year,
    ICE removed almost 410,000 aliens, some 55 percent of them had
    criminal convictions. This is almost double the number of
    criminal alien removals in 2008 and 96 percent of those aliens
    fit within the priority categories I mentioned above. Simply
    put, our reforms and priorities have made our communities
    safer.
        ICE carefully manages its detention population in our field
    offices on the border and nationwide. Operational needs on the
    southwest border can change quickly. ICE has a policy and
    infrastructure in place to meet those needs.
        The successes I mention today could not have been achieved
    without implementation of the smart, effective and efficient
    policies issued by Secretary Napolitano and Director Morton. Of
    course we must work closely with our DHS partners in order to
    meet our goals. For instance, 44 percent of ICE's detainees in
    ICE custody came from the CBP.
        Our joint efforts are critical to the Nation's border
    enforcement efforts and I am proud of the working relationship
    I have with my colleagues with whom I am testifying today.
        Another part of our commitment to smart and effective
    immigration enforcement are the major reforms we have made to
    the detention system. All of our reforms help ensure that
    individuals in ICE's detained population are held appropriately
    and are classified according to their risk. We have put in
    place strong safeguards against abuse to ensure our detainees
    have access to health care and legal resources.
        The success I have outlined today is the result of
    reasonable immigration policies and priorities. Even in this
    time of budget uncertainty, we are using our resources in a
    smart, effective and responsible manner. We are making the
    public safer by targeting our resources where they are needed
    most.
        Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I am pleased to
    answer any questions you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Homan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Homan.
        We now look forward to hearing from Ms. Gambler for five
    minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF REBECCA GAMBLER

        Ms. Gambler. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz and members of
    the subcommittee.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify at today's hearing
    to discuss GAO's work on DHS programs and efforts to secure the
    border.
        Since 2004, DHS has increased resources allocated to
    securing borders. For example, in fiscal year 2004, the Border
    Patrol had over 10,000 agents; in fiscal year 2011, there were
    over 21,000 agents. Similarly, the number of Customs and Border
    Protection Officers stationed at ports of entry has increased
    from over 17,000 in fiscal year 2004 to more than 20,000 in
    fiscal year 2011. DHS has deployed technology and
    infrastructure to border areas.
        Today, I will focus my remarks on three key areas in which
    GAO has assessed DHS' efforts to secure our Nation's borders.
    First, I will highlight our work reviewing GAO's efforts to
    assess its border security activities. Second, I will discuss
    GAO's work reviewing interagency coordination efforts. Third, I
    will highlight GAO's work on DHS management of technology
    assets for securing the border.
        With regard to my first point, Border Patrol data show that
    from fiscal year 2006 to 2011, apprehensions within each
    southwest border sector declined. Border Patrol attributed this
    decrease to various factors such as changes in the U.S. economy
    and increases in resources. Fiscal year 2012 data reported by
    the Border Patrol indicate that apprehensions across the
    southwest border increased from fiscal year 2011 but it is too
    early to assess whether this increase indicates a change in
    trend. Further, from fiscal year 2006 through 2011, estimated
    known illegal entries in each southwest border sector also
    declined.
        In addition to data on apprehensions, other data collected
    by the Border Patrol are used by sector management to inform
    assessments of its efforts. These data include, among other
    things, the percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who
    were apprehended more than once, which is referred to as the
    recidivism rate, and contraband seizures.
        With regard to the recidivism rate, our analysis of Border
    Patrol data showed that the rate decreased across southwest
    border sectors between fiscal years 2008 and 2011. With regard
    to drug and other contraband seizures, the number of seizures
    increased by 83 percent from fiscal year 2006 to 2011.
        Since fiscal year 2011, DHS has used a number of
    apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as
    an interim performance goal and measure for border security.
    This measure provides some useful information but does not
    position the department to be able to report on how effective
    its efforts are at securing the border resulting in reduced
    oversight and DHS accountability.
        The Border Patrol is in the process of developing goals and
    measures. However, it has not set target time frames for
    completing its efforts. We recommended that the Border Patrol
    establish such time frames to help ensure that development of
    goals and measures are completed in a timely manner. The
    Department agreed with our recommendations and stated that it
    plans to establish such time frames by November 2013.
        With regard to my second point, DHS and other agencies have
    reported improvements in interagency coordination of border
    enforcement operations. For example, several partners
    responsible for securing federal lands along the borders have
    cited increased information sharing and communication.
        However, our work has also identified opportunities for
    improvements in more consistent implementation of existing
    interagency agreements and stronger oversight of interagency
    forums for border security.
        Finally, DHS has deployed technology infrastructure and
    other assets to U.S. borders. However, DHS has faced a number
    of challenges in effectively planning for and managing its
    technology programs and other assets. For example, our work has
    shown that DHS could better document the analysis it has used
    to determine the types, quantities and locations of
    technologies it plans to deploy to the southwest border under
    its new technology plan.
        Further, CBP has not yet defined performance metrics for
    assessing implementation of its new technology plans, hindering
    CBP's efforts to assess the effectiveness of the plan going
    forward.
        In closing, our work has identified opportunities for DHS
    to strengthen its border security programs and efforts. We have
    made a number of recommendations to the Department to address
    various challenges and to enhance management of border security
    related programs. DHS has generally concurred with our
    recommendations and is taking action to address them. We will
    continue to monitor DHS' efforts in these efforts.
        This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased
    to answer any questions members may have.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Gambler follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        I will now recognize myself for five minutes.
        Ms. Gambler, is it fair to say there are no metrics to
    determine how secure or insecure the border is currently?
        Ms. Gambler. Currently, the Department is using the number
    of apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry
    as its goal and measure for border security.
        Mr. Chaffetz. That is an incomplete metric, would you
    agree?
        Ms. Gambler. That measure does not position the Border
    Patrol and DHS to be able to assess the effectiveness of its
    efforts because it doesn't compare apprehensions to estimated
    entrants.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        Mr. Murphy, my understanding is we have no entry/exit
    system, particularly at the land-based ports, to gauge who is
    coming and who is going out, correct?
        Mr. Murphy. No, sir, I wouldn't say that is completely
    correct. I think we have made some significant improvements in
    sophistication and entrants. Obviously that has been the focus.
    As far as the exits, we are working on that. That is a
    significant issue. We are well aware of it.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Do you have any statistics to show how many
    people actually leave the Country?
        Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. My understanding is the majority of visas
    this Country offers are called B1 and B2 entry/exits. I sat and
    watched this. Thousands of people in Nogales and Yuma streamed
    into the Country. In fiscal year 2011, my understanding is we
    approved, through the State Department, 4.3 million of these
    cards where people are supposed to be in the Country
    temporarily, right?
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How many people came into the Country using a
    B1, B2 entry/exit card?
        Mr. Murphy. I don't have that number but I can get that.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Is this something the agency has?
        Mr. Murphy. Oh, yes, we track what comes in. It is what is
    going out that right now we need to get a better handle on.
        Mr. Chaffetz. When you say better handle, do you track any
    of them going out?
        Mr. Murphy. Right now, our outbound operations are
    basically geared towards intelligence and pulse and surge
    operations.
        Mr. Chaffetz. That is not what I asked you.
        Mr. Murphy. I know, sir. No, we don't.
        Mr. Chaffetz. We are letting millions of people, almost a
    million a day, into the Country. We have no idea how many are
    going out, is that fair to say?
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. This is current law, right, that we are
    supposed to have an entry/exit program. Why don't we have an
    exit program?
        Mr. Murphy. We are working on it, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. You have been there for a while. How long
    have you worked in the agency?
        Mr. Murphy. Twenty-nine years, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Why don't we have an exit program? It is not
    good enough to just smile at me.
        Mr. Murphy. No, sir. I don't have a good answer for you. We
    know it is an issue.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Is it a funding issue? Is it a lack of
    commitment? Is there not available software? If you are telling
    me we are gauging when they come into the Country, why aren't
    we gauging when they go out of the Country?
        Mr. Murphy. I think it is a huge issue and unfortunately,
    it is a costly issue too. We would have to replicate what we
    have coming into the Country at ports of entry almost at port
    of entry going out of the Country in order to probably get our
    arms around that exact issue.
        Mr. Chaffetz. We are told that 40 percent of the people
    here illegally came here legally. When we don't have a viable
    exit system and there are no metrics, there is no information,
    there is not even an attempt to try to gather some names, I am
    really concerned about the entry/exit program. I am really
    concerned about the B1, B2 visas. I think it is the untold
    story of the immigration problem and mess that we have.
        When the majority of the visas given out to this Country
    are given via the B1, B2 entry/exit, 4.3 million we gave out in
    fiscal year 2011, what is the rule? You are only supposed to go
    into the Country a certain 10 miles or something with an entry/
    exit card, correct?
        Mr. Murphy. I think it was 25. We just increased that
    recently.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Why? Why did we increase it? Increased it to
    what?
        Mr. Murphy. I believe in New Mexico it is 55 miles.
        Mr. Chaffetz. In certain parts of the Country, you are only
    supposed to go 10 miles, in some it is 25 and now you are
    saying in parts of New Mexico you can go 55 miles. Do we do any
    monitoring of that?
        Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. There is no monitoring, we just do it on your
    word. We have millions of these out there. Do you know how
    many? We issued 4.3 million entry/exit cards in 2011. How many
    cards are out there? When you get a card, how long is that good
    for? Is it valid for just a year or is it valid forever? Do you
    know?
        Mr. Murphy. I don't know offhand. I do know they put a date
    on how long it is valid, yes, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So there are millions of these cards out
    there. It is just the honor system right now, right? You are
    just supposed to come back but you are not gauging even a
    single person as to whether or not they are returning?
        Mr. Murphy. We are not capturing that right now.
        Mr. Chaffetz. My time has expired. I now recognize the
    gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis, for five minutes.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to also thank the gentlemen and the lady for being
    here today.
        My questions are going to concentrate on the fence as a
    mechanism to stop trans land crossings. Has the fence between
    California and Mexico improved the crossing of undocumented
    workers and illegals? Mr. Fisher, you are nodding your head?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Congresswoman. The fence, and in
    particular, you mentioned San Diego, has had an impact in
    reducing the flow of people into the United States in those
    areas where we do have that.
        Mrs. Lummis. How much of the fence is completed on the
    Arizona-Mexico border?
        Mr. Fisher. In total, there is about 652 miles across the
    southwest border that has been completed. Some of that is
    pedestrian fence and some of that is vehicle barriers. I am not
    really sure specifically in Arizona how much. Arizona has about
    260 miles of border. Within those urban areas in Douglas, Naco
    and Nogales out to both the east and west flanks of the ports
    of entry, that has been extended a significant number of miles.
        Mrs. Lummis. Do you believe that completing a fence on the
    border between Mexico and Arizona would be beneficial to
    preventing the flow of people and narcotics across the border?
        Mr. Fisher. I do, in some locations.
        Mrs. Lummis. What locations would those be, specifically
    along the Arizona-Mexico borders?
        Mr. Fisher. It would be in those areas where the networks
    and criminal organizations like to exploit the legitimate
    infrastructure that exists.
        Mrs. Lummis. Such as? What is legitimate infrastructure?
        Mr. Fisher. If you think of a smuggling organization much
    like a business, they are trying to move a commodity, whether
    that is people or narcotics, through the borders and out the
    border areas. The infrastructure that requires them to do that
    is road systems, airports, bus stations and all that legitimate
    infrastructure supports the communities within those border
    areas.
        Mrs. Lummis. What about wilderness areas where we don't
    have fencing, where you have been restricted by other U.S.
    agencies from using motorized vehicles in wilderness areas and
    the offending parties are using vehicles making it difficult
    for you to apprehend them? Is that problematic?
        Mr. Fisher. In some areas, I wouldn't qualify it as
    problematic. There are areas, as you mentioned, public lands in
    Arizona, which prohibit in most situations on a steady state
    deployment, motorized vehicles. We do have, and have entered an
    agreement with the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife
    to be able to go into those areas based on intelligence if we
    know there is activity. We are allowed onto those areas to
    basically track individuals that come across.
        Mrs. Lummis. So you have to get agreements with another
    federal agency to gain access to federal land on our side of
    the border?
        Mr. Fisher. The agreement has already been set. In other
    words, the Memorandum of Understanding allows us to go onto
    those lands. Remember, some of that public land is protected
    under the environmental laws. It doesn't preclude us from going
    on there, just we have the agreement that we are allowed to go
    in when we are actually working the border.
        Mrs. Lummis. You can pursue someone?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, we can.
        Mrs. Lummis. But can you protect the border? Can you patrol
    the border?
        Mr. Fisher. In some areas, in most areas, we can.
        Mrs. Lummis. With vehicles?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, we do it with vehicles, we do it with
    horseback and a lot of the detection is made from the air also.
        Mrs. Lummis. The Tucson border has been an area where we
    have seen significant crossings?
        Mr. Fisher. That is correct.
        Mrs. Lummis. Is that now the second most prevalent area to
    cross?
        Mr. Fisher. In terms of apprehensions right now, it is
    second only to Rio Grande Valley in the south Texas area.
        Mrs. Lummis. It continues to be a major source of
    crossings?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes.
        Mrs. Lummis. What would be your recommended best deterrent
    to illegal crossings in that area, in Mexico and Arizona?
        Mr. Fisher. There are a couple things. I wouldn't invest on
    one thing in particular. One investment would be additional
    technology, detecting and monitoring.
        Mrs. Lummis. We have seen some technology reports that some
    of the technology has failed and was expensive and its failure
    has not necessarily been corrected. How is that going? The
    SBInet, what is the Department's plan to improve that
    technology, the border radar system?
        Mr. Fisher. About three years ago when SBI was being
    assessed, Secretary Napolitano asked CBP, in particular the
    Border Patrol, to make an assessment on whether we should
    continue exploring that type of technology and integrated
    technology that SBI had planned.
        Mrs. Lummis. $1.2 billion, as I understand, has been spent
    on that?
        Mr. Fisher. That sounds about right, yes.
        Mrs. Lummis. You are assessing now whether that is going
    forward in a productive way?
        Mr. Fisher. We made that assessment and our recommendation
    to the Secretary, which she agreed to, was to invest more in
    the mobile technology and not to invest in things like SBInet
    which were more static.
        Mrs. Lummis. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Fisher, will you please provide to the
    committee the Interagency Working Agreement on your ability to
    patrol and pursue potentially people who are here illegally on
    public lands that are designated wilderness or similar, the
    wilderness study areas, those types of things. Organ Pipe, for
    instance, would be an area. Is that something you can provide
    to the committee?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How long would it take to get that to us?
        Mr. Fisher. I will take that back as an action item right
    after the hearing.
        Mr. Chaffetz. When is a reasonable time that I should get
    upset that you haven't provided that to me?
        Mr. Fisher. Far be it for me, sir.
        Mr. Chaffetz. You are in charge here, so you make a
    decision. What is the date? All right, July 3 of this year, is
    that fair?
        Mr. Fisher. You read my mind.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
        We will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Duncan, for five minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fisher, just out of curiosity, can you give me a rough
    number of how many Border Patrol agents there were when you
    started with the agency 26 years ago?
        Mr. Fisher. Less than 3,000.
        Mr. Duncan. Less than 3,000?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Duncan. The reason I asked that, I remember we gave
    billion increases in funding for border control in the 1990s
    and how we have heard Ms. Gambler say that since 2004, we have
    gone from 10,000 to 21,000 agents. Now the Senate has passed an
    amendment saying we are supposed to double that again.
        Frankly, I know you can never satisfy any government
    agency's appetite for money or land, but I am really skeptical
    as to whether we can efficiently and effectively spend all the
    money that we are throwing at this effort and increase the
    number of agents that much that quickly. What do you say about
    that Commissioner Murphy? How big was Customs when you started
    29 years ago?
        Mr. Murphy. To be honest with you, I don't know what that
    number is. As you indicate, there is significant work to be
    done but as to the determination of the right number, I think
    that is obviously something that has to be decided.
        Mr. Duncan. Isn't the number coming across in large part
    determined by the economy, the economy in Mexico and here,
    because I read during our down turn the numbers coming across
    greatly decreased and a lot of people who had come here
    illegally were going back to Mexico or other countries? Is that
    true?
        Mr. Murphy. As you may be aware, one thing that we have
    done to try to transform the way we look at the border and the
    numbers we need, we created the Workload Staffing Model. This
    takes 100 different data element and over a million
    calculations that takes into account the current volume of
    activity, apprehensions, seizures, hours of operation and how
    many folks are onboard now.
        It is a very dynamic process. It will tell you based upon
    that workload and the time it takes to do those different
    functions in the workload, how many bodies that you need. The
    nice thing about this one is it is not a static process. It is
    a very dynamic process. In the case where you see an uptick in
    activity at a port of entry or an area for a year or two, that
    Workload Staffing Model will dictate what that number should be
    based on that volume, activity and workload.
        Mr. Duncan. Let me stop you. A lot of what you said is very
    bureaucratic and I have just a little bit of time left.
        Mr. Homan, what do you say about the statement by Ms.
    Gambler that because of the transition from using operational
    control and so forth, she says, therefore, until new goals and
    measures are developed, DHS and Congress could experience
    reduced oversight and DHS accountability? What do you say about
    that? That is a pretty serious charge.
        Mr. Homan. Yes. I can say we are shoulder to shoulder with
    Border Patrol. Our level of collaboration has never been
    higher. My staff meets with the Border Patrol staff at least
    once a week talking about enforcement strategies on the border.
    As a matter of business, we detain all recent border entrants,
    so I think we are doing the right thing.
        I think with the resources we have, I think we are
    executing the mission at an all time high. My removals are at a
    record high, my arrests are at a record high, my detentions are
    at a record high. I think the mission, us and the Border Patrol
    working hand in hand, along with CBP, makes sense.
        Mr. Duncan. The Chairman mentioned 4.3 million coming
    across just on one program. Can anybody on the panel tell me
    how many people are entering this Country legally each year?
    Ms. Gambler, do you know anything about that? Somebody should
    know that.
        Ms. Gambler. We could provide that number for the record. I
    don't know it off the top of my head.
        Mr. Duncan. What are the latest estimates as to how many
    are coming across illegally? Surely this panel should know
    something like that. Your latest guesses or estimates?
        Mr. Fisher. Our estimates right now, we are averaging
    approximately, this fiscal year 2013, 1,100 apprehensions. If
    you take a look at what we are trying to design as it relates
    to the effectiveness rate, in getting what the Chairman
    mentioned as the denominator, trying to get that known flow, we
    don't have those estimates right now but we are working towards
    getting that as well.
        Mr. Duncan. I think that is something you should provide to
    us as soon as you get it.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Following up on that, Mr. Fisher, how many
    turn back south per day?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't know specifically what that number is
    but we do track that and I can get that.
        Mr. Chaffetz. How many got-aways?
        Mr. Fisher. I can do that as well. I don't have that number
    off the top of my head. The effectiveness rate alone on the
    southwest border right now is approximately 75 percent.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Again, I really challenge that number as I
    think the GAO does. Those are just the known got-aways, does
    not include turn back souths or TBSs?
        Mr. Fisher. It includes all those variables, includes all
    the apprehensions, the got-aways and the turnbacks. That is the
    effectiveness formula. When you take a look at the
    apprehensions, you add those to your turnbacks and divide that
    by the total entries, that is the effectiveness rate.
        Mr. Chaffetz. What about the ones we are not aware of?
        Mr. Fisher. There are two different methodologies we use. I
    mentioned earlier in my testimony the geospatial intelligence
    piece and the use of the Predator Beast is to do just that, to
    shrink the border, increase our situational awareness so that
    we have a better sense of what that number is to cover a lot
    more of that border.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I will now recognize the gentleman from South
    Carolina, the always dapper Mr. Gowdy.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz.
        I want to welcome all of our witnesses.
        Chairman Chaffetz shared a bit of philosophy with me a
    couple of nights ago at dinner and I wrote it down to make sure
    I got it right. He said if you don't know where you are going,
    you probably won't know when you get there.
        Ms. Gambler, I am asked constantly about border security.
    Tell me what is an ambitious but reasonable goal with respect
    to border security to the extent that it is a condition
    precedent to any other part of immigration reform? What are we
    looking for?
        Ms. Gambler. Congressman, setting a goal for border
    security would be the responsibility of DHS or would be a
    policy call on the part of Congress.
        Mr. Gowdy. I know, but I am asking you if you were empress
    for the day, what would you do? What is a realistic but
    ambitious goal?
        Ms. Gambler. Again, that is a responsibility for the
    Department to set that goal and that is a policy call for
    Congress. As would be the case for any bill, GAO's role would
    be to review the implementation of any provisions or programs
    that the Executive Branch might implement resulting from a bill
    if we were asked to do so.
        Mr. Gowdy. How long have you worked for GAO?
        Ms. Gambler. I have been with GAO since 2002.
        Mr. Gowdy. That is 11 years?
        Ms. Gambler. Yes.
        Mr. Gowdy. Surely you have an opinion on what is likely to
    work because you probably are following the debate just like
    the rest of us are. Before you get to any other aspect of
    immigration reform, they want to make sure the border is
    secure. That is an easy phrase to use but it is a hard phrase
    to implement. What is a realistic definition of a secure
    border?
        Ms. Gambler. What we recommended is that the Department of
    Homeland Security set a goal for its border security efforts
    and then set metrics for assessing progress made against that
    goal. DHS is in the process of developing those goals and
    measures. We have suggested that they set time frames for
    completing those goals and metrics so that there are mechanisms
    in place for assessing what the goal is for border security and
    how that can be measured.
        Mr. Gowdy. Why is there not currently a goal or am I just
    naive?
        Ms. Gambler. Up until fiscal year 2011, DHS was using
    operational control as its performance goal and measure for
    border security. They discontinued using that measure in fiscal
    year 2011.
        Mr. Gowdy. Why?
        Ms. Gambler. They told us they wanted to move toward more
    quantifiable metrics for border security and using the number
    of apprehensions on the southwest border was designed to be an
    interim measure. DHS has said they were going to put those
    metrics in place by fiscal year 2012 but have been using the
    number of apprehensions as the interim measure. We recommended
    again that they set time frames and milestones for completing
    development of those goals and measures.
        Mr. Gowdy. Let me ask it another way. If you had to go back
    to your hometown and stand in front of people asking you
    whether or not the border was secure, what metrics would you
    use in answering their question?
        Ms. Gambler. If I was asked that question, I would say the
    Department has not yet set goals and measures for assessing how
    secure the border is, so that makes it difficult to assess
    against criteria or a yardstick on the level of security.
        Mr. Gowdy. Difficult may be an understatement. It makes it
    kind of hard for those of us interested in getting on to the
    next steps of immigration reform if you don't get over the
    condition precedent and prove to your constituents that you
    have a reasonable but ambitious border security goal. It makes
    the rest of it pretty tough.
        Visa overstays, do you know how they are currently
    investigated?
        Ms. Gambler. We issued a report on overstays in April 2011
    and have ongoing work looking at overstay enforcement efforts
    as well. That ongoing work will issue in July, next month.
        Mr. Gowdy. I promise I am going to read the report, but you
    already know something about the issue. Currently, if Mr.
    Chaffetz were here on a visa and he overstayed, how would we
    know, how would we investigate, how would we decide what we
    were going to do about it? What is currently being done?
        Ms. Gambler. If a foreign national enters the U.S. and
    there is no corresponding departure record for that person,
    that record would be checked against numerous DHS databases and
    would be prioritized against ICE's law enforcement and public
    safety priorities. If the person met those priorities, their
    information, their record would be sent forward for
    investigation to ICE field offices.
        Mr. Gowdy. You wouldn't have to wait for that person to
    commit some other offense or have some other interaction with
    government, would you?
        Ms. Gambler. The overstays that ICE is prioritizing for
    investigation are those who meet their public safety and
    national security priorities. If the person would not meet
    those priorities and they were likely an overstay, they would
    not be investigated by ICE.
        Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Chairman, I was going to thank them for
    their service and I was going to ask them about what role, if
    any, State and local law enforcement should play in assisting
    them but I am out of time. I yield back.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
        I think the gentleman from South Carolina would be most
    interested to know that based on the formula that Ms. Gambler
    just shared, the majority of visas that we give out in this
    Country are B1, B2 entry/exits. Mr. Murphy testified that they
    don't track any of the exits, none of them, so we have
    absolutely zero information about who may be overstaying, who
    may have gone beyond the bounds because they are variable. They
    are only supposed to go into certain parts of the Country.
        It is probably the biggest, gaping hole we have on our
    border. There is no tracking, there is no information, there
    are no statistics and no field reports. There is nothing unless
    that person commits a crime.
        I would hope that the agency would be able to provide,
    through maybe the Department of Justice and others, a report of
    how many people committed crimes that came here on a B1, B2
    entry/exit visa. Somehow or some way we are going to unearth
    that number.
        Now I will recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Bentivolio, for five minutes.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you very much for appearing here today. We really
    appreciate it. Maybe you can help me clear up some questions I
    have.
        I keep hearing in the media we have 11 million people here
    who should not be here. How did we arrive at that number? If
    you have no way of knowing who you didn't catch, how do you
    come up with a figure of 11 million?
        Mr. Fisher. Congressman, I don't know where that number
    comes from.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I keep hearing it in the media.
        Mr. Fisher. I have heard it as well but I don't know where
    that came from.
        Mr. Bentivolio. So it is really not 11 million and could be
    more, right?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't know that either.
        Mr. Bentivolio. We really do not know it, do we because it
    is the old saying, if the crime is committed and nobody was
    there, how do you know the crime was committed except by
    evidence, but we don't have any evidence.
        What percentage of the border does technology cover?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't know the percentage. That is a good
    question. I could find out and get back to you. Specifically,
    we have approximately 15,000 pieces of equipment covering about
    17,000 miles. It doesn't cover all 17,000 and that is based on
    the military specs in terms of what the equipment can do. You
    then have to take into consideration the geography and the
    topography in which it is located. I don't know the percentage
    but we can factor that as well.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I also heard you have cameras that do
    thermal imaging and other cameras. When you detect somebody
    crossing illegally, what is the response time?
        Mr. Fisher. It really depends on where the entry is
    detected, depending on where we have patrol agents, depending
    on whether we do it within the first 100 meters or whether we
    do it within the first mile. Terrain is going to dictate that.
    The tactics and techniques of the agents on the ground will
    determine where is the best way to make the approach in a safe
    and secure manner.
        Mr. Bentivolio. A Border Patrolman told me there was an
    alert, he had to go out there and there were 26 people and they
    just scattered. My question is, how do you send one or two
    Border Patrol agents to pick up 26 people, especially in the
    terrain that I was in when I toured the border? Is there
    another way? He said well, they caught three but 23 got away.
    Is that how we determine the number of 11 million?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't believe so but to your earlier point,
    whether there is one Border Patrol agent that responds or
    whether there are two or three Border Patrol agents, really
    determines on how they are applying the strategy on the ground.
    In some cases, the Border Patrol agent may not know how many
    people, there may be just a sensor indication, so we may not
    have specific quantities of individuals that may have made the
    incursion.
        Many times, Border Patrol agents are assisted with air to
    ground support. Our Office of Air/Marine Operations provides
    over watch for us in that regard. Our strategy is built on
    being able to deploy and redeploy resources for those Border
    Patrol agents if in fact they come across a group of 23 and
    they run.
        Generally, what would happen is we would continue tracking
    operations and more resources would be brought to bear to be
    able to continue to track to the extent possible and make sure
    that we apprehend everybody that comes across in between the
    ports of entry.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I also heard stories of hang gliders flying
    out of Mexico when I was there, personal gliders, dropping off
    drugs to the United States and then flying back. Are you doing
    anything to stop that?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I believe you
    are referring to the ultra lights over the last few years. One
    of the things I alluded to in my testimony was when you look at
    the transnational criminal organizations and those networks
    that own and operate within the border areas, they are always
    going to adapt their operations to be able to increase their
    profit margin. One of the things we have seen is the ultra
    lights.
        We are working with the Marine Operations Center in
    Riverside, California which gets radar feeds from throughout
    the United States to be able to adjust those radar to be able
    to detect low flying aircraft like the ultra lights. It is not
    perfect yet. We also have Border Patrol agents that use mobile
    surveillance systems on the ground and be able to look up and
    be able to identify those ultra lights as well.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Maybe you could explain to me what the term
    catch and release means?
        Mr. Fisher. Catch and release was a phrase a few years ago
    and I believe it was coined, maybe not the first time, but used
    quite a bit by Secretary Chertkof when he was Secretary of
    Homeland Security.
        It was meant when we were seeing increases in activity in
    locations that part of the policy at the time was people we
    were going to apprehend in between the ports of entry, we were
    not going to just release on what we would call their own
    recognizance. Today certainly in high risk areas, we want to
    maintain the policy of catching individuals that have come
    illegally between the ports of entry and make sure they are
    detained.
        Mr. Bentivolio. So a person who came here illegally, you
    catch them and then you release them on their own recognizance?
        Mr. Fisher. No, sir. The current policy really was to end
    catch and release. In some locations over the years, depending
    upon fluctuations and funding availability for the enforcement
    and removal operations, individuals that would request a
    hearing from an immigration judge, if they did not pose any
    risk to the public and there was no detention space allowed,
    there was a provision within the administrative piece to
    release them on their own recognizance pending their
    administrative hearing with the judge.
        That policy was adjusted depending upon what resources are
    available and it fluctuates to be able to minimize risk.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Go ahead.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
        They would go in front of a judge and the judge would
    release them, correct?
        Mr. Fisher. Generally, because I am not the expert, the
    real Border Patrol agents do the work in the field, but
    generally, what would happen is once we made the determination,
    we issued a warrant of arrest and a notice to appear. That
    notice to appear was for an immigration hearing.
        Mr. Bentivolio. How many would come back and actually
    reappear before the judge? Do you have a percentage that come
    back, do they all come back or just 50 percent, 75 percent?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't have that number right off the top of
    my head, but it would depend on which year you are talking
    about or recently.
        Mr. Bentivolio. It is probably closer to about 10 percent,
    would that be right?
        Mr. Fisher. I would not want to guess at that.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
    gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, for five minutes.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank the witnesses for their testimony here today. It
    sounds like you have a relatively easy job, gentlemen,
    challenging to say the least.
        Over the last decade, the U.S. taxpayer has funded tens of
    billions of dollars in additional personnel, technology and
    infrastructure along that southwest border. I think we have
    installed radiation detection portals, non-intrusive imaging
    equipment, license plate readers, camera systems, fencing, and
    the list goes on.
        Despite the staggering sums of that money, we know that
    cartels are still able to bring illicit drugs into the Country;
    persons looking for work still cross over; and organized crime
    networks still manage to smuggle various forms of contraband
    through these ports of entry.
        Nobody disputes the fact that this guns, guards and gates
    spending has been effective to a degree, but not all spending
    is equal, I guess. As we move forward, we will take a look and
    see which areas of investment are more effective and produce
    better results.
        Let me begin with you, Chief Fisher, on the gates. As I
    understand it, building the border fence or improving the
    existing fence makes sense in some locations but may not make
    sense in others. For instance, just west of San Ysidro,
    California, people say it helped control illegal crossing
    problems there. Others say that it provided significant
    benefits in other locations, particularly in urbanized crossing
    corridors. Does that sound accurate to you?
        Mr. Fisher. It does.
        Mr. Tierney. Ms. Gambler, I also understand that GAO has
    questioned the effectiveness of the fence and often looks at
    the high cost of building the fence. That question has been
    raised for a number of years. Is that also true?
        Ms. Gambler. In our work, Congressman, we did find that DHS
    had not taken steps to assess or quantify the contributions
    that fencing is making to border security. We recommended that
    they conduct a cost effective analysis to do that.
        Mr. Tierney. If Congress were to decide to double the size
    of the existing fence or at least add hundreds of additional
    miles to it, how would the department determine where to build
    that extra fence?
        Ms. Gambler. I don't know how they would determine where to
    build the fence, but they do have analysis under way in
    response to our recommendation to determine what contribution
    fencing is making to border security efforts. That would be an
    important question going forward.
        Mr. Tierney. I am guessing that it makes sense to add
    fencing in some areas and may be a total waste in others. Is
    that generally true?
        Ms. Gambler. That would be for the Department of Homeland
    Security to determine.
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Fisher or Mr. Murphy, does that sound true
    to you, that in some areas it would be a good investment and in
    others, it may not be a good investment at all?
        Mr. Fisher. That is accurate, sir, yes.
        Mr. Tierney. Are you comfortable that the Department is
    putting criteria in place to help identify which areas are
    which?
        Mr. Fisher. I am, sir, yes.
        Mr. Tierney. Ms. Gambler, there are also proposals to add
    new sensors, technology, camera systems, all along the border
    to detect illegal crossings. I know that GAO previously
    reviewed some major technology problems with the SBInet and
    found hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered in
    that effort and there were challenges that had to be overcome.
        Before we invest billions of dollars in that type of
    technology, can you tell us what lessons were learned from that
    whole SBInet situation?
        Ms. Gambler. Our body of work looking at DHS' management of
    border security, border surveillance technologies has
    identified challenges in the management of that technology,
    including the technology being delivered on schedule and within
    cost parameters that were set for the technology.
        Back in 2012, we issued a report on DHS' new plan for
    deploying border surveillance technologies to Arizona. One of
    the key findings from that report was that DHS had not fully
    documented the underlying analysis and justification used to
    support the types, quantities and locations of technologies it
    plans to deploy under that new plan.
        Mr. Tierney. You are comfortable that the department is
    responding to your report and your recommendations?
        Ms. Gambler. The department did agree with those
    recommendations and is taking steps to address them. We do have
    ongoing work reviewing that new plan and are monitoring DHS'
    actions to respond to our recommendations.
        Mr. Tierney. Now we are talking about possibly increasing
    the number of agents exponentially on that basis. What steps
    should the Border Patrol take to make sure the increase in
    personnel is effectively utilized, that they are placed in the
    right places in the right numbers?
        Ms. Gambler. The Border Patrol issued its new strategic
    plan last year in May 2012. As part of implementation of that
    plan, we understand the Border Patrol is developing a process
    for assessing what resources are needed and how to deploy them.
    We understand that process is moving forward and they are
    looking to implement it in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Fisher, can you tell us a bit more about
    that?
        Mr. Fisher. Certainly within the framework of the strategy,
    we really focused our efforts on being risk-based as opposed to
    just asking for more and more resources and deploying them in a
    lateral fashion across the southwest border. That was a
    significant strategic shift in our thinking and certainly
    within our deployments over the last couple of years.
        As we moved forward, we also recognized that technology has
    come a long way. I can remember as a young agent getting the
    first pair of AMPBS-7 Bravos which were the old night vision
    goggles from the military after the first Gulf War. I thought
    at that point we were really going to make a difference in
    border security because now for the very first time as an
    agent, at night I was able to see five feet in front of me. I
    thought that was going to change the operation by which the
    Border Patrol started back in 1924.
        We continue to learn and adjust with the technology. I will
    tell you as good as technology is getting, the more technology
    we get, it is still no replacement for a well trained Border
    Patrol agent because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter
    what you have flying in the air, it doesn't matter how many
    unattended ground sensors you have buried on the ground, the
    Border Patrol agent still while at times alone, as we have
    heard today, has to close that 50 meters by himself or herself.
        The thinking and the training of those Border Patrol
    agents, who as we speak right now, are out there on patrol,
    there is no substitute for that. I am very proud of the work
    they do. It is a combination of taking a look at the best
    technology that is available, taking a look at the
    infrastructure and continuing to train and support the Border
    Patrol agents is the best way. That is the way we are
    approaching the implementation against this new strategy.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thank you again for your work and
    for your testimony here today.
        Mr. Bentivolio. [Presiding] The Chair will now recognize
    the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief Fisher and Mr. Murphy, in your shared testimony, you
    said the following, ``We do not use this term 'operation
    control' as a measure of border security because of the complex
    nature of the magnitude of different border conditions cannot
    be described by a single objective measure. Although an
    indicator of success, we cannot measure border security solely
    based on crime rates because even the safest communities in
    America have some crime.''
        If you are claiming that one objective measure is not
    enough to measure border security, then why is only one
    measure, apprehension rates, used or cited when top DHS
    officials try to pass off our southern border as secure?
        Mr. Fisher. Apprehension still is the metric that we
    capture and report to the Department. However, we have learned
    quite a bit over the last couple of years and I think Ms.
    Gambler talked on some of that. The apprehension number really
    doesn't tell you much because if you compare and contrast it
    from previous fiscal years, as the Chairman mentioned, if it
    goes up I can say that is success and if it goes down I can say
    that is success.
        We recognized a few years ago that in and of itself was not
    a good metric, but you need the apprehension to then peel back
    the layers to understand how many people within that total
    population of arrests were there because recidivism doesn't
    matter. It is important to me and important to the organization
    to distinguish those individuals who are only apprehended two
    times from those individuals that were apprehended perhaps six
    or eight times.
        Mr. Gosar. Would you agree, Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. From our standpoint as I indicated in my
    testimony earlier, we look at it as a well managed border. I
    don't think there is one single metric. There are a variety of
    things that we do look at, but I think what we have tried to do
    is to look at transforming the way we do business, our
    processes, bringing in new technology, trying to basically do a
    better job much more efficiently.
        In that way we feel we will have much more success, not
    only from the standpoint of apprehensions or seizures, but also
    from the standpoint of facilitating the legitimate flow of
    traffic and trade.
        Mr. Gosar. Are you aware of an experiment in which a drone
    actually looked at a corridor over time and looked at
    apprehension rates and made a comparison of actually who
    crossed that border versus apprehension rates? Are you aware of
    that study?
        Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
        Mr. Gosar. Actually, it is very staggering because it
    showed there were 422 apprehensions, but in actuality, there
    were over 7,000 people that crossed the border. Are you aware
    of that, Ms. Gambler?
        Ms. Gambler. We have not seen that study.
        Mr. Gosar. Really, and we are going to trust our border
    security with Homeland Security and we still don't understand
    that? How familiar are you with the numbers you are citing to
    the American public and Congress in regard to the number of
    illegal immigrants in this Country?
        Ms. Gambler. In terms of the data we reported in our
    December 2011 report, we reported the data that Border Patrol
    had available.
        Mr. Gosar. Based on apprehensions. This is showing you in
    this technology aspect that we are showing less than six
    percent actually being apprehended versus what is actually a
    known factor, is that true?
        Ms. Gambler. Again, we looked at the data that the Border
    Patrol was collecting at the time that we did the work. We
    looked at number of apprehensions, as well as estimated known
    illegal entries and presented that data. We did also identify
    some limitations with that data.
        Mr. Gosar. It is very antiquated. I am just pointing out
    that when you are citing these studies, they are antiquated
    measures. We need to have more opportunities, a diverse
    opportunity and not just from Federal Government, State and
    locals to look at the metrics in regard to border security,
    would you agree?
        Ms. Gambler. We recommended and the Department is in the
    process of setting goals and metrics for border security. We
    recommended they come up with time frames for completing that
    effort so that the measures can be completed in a timely
    manner.
        Mr. Gosar. Does that include State and local officials so
    that we have a uniform policy enforcement all the way through
    this Country, not just on border?
        Ms. Gambler. It would be for the department to set what
    those goals and metrics are.
        Mr. Gosar. I will be honest with you. I am not real
    comfortable. I am from Arizona and we have some problems there.
    Border security should be a uniform policy that is all the way
    through.
        I can tell you coming from a number of people within my
    conference, it is not going to be left up to Homeland Security,
    it will be a joint venture in regards to having border security
    so that we see the metrics from Border Patrol all the way and
    encompassing all avenues of law enforcement.
        I think that is what the American public wants. We have
    limited resources. Homeland Security has not really restored a
    lot of trust. Trust is a series of promises kept and we don't
    find much of that with Homeland Security.
        Let me ask you an other question. How do you feel about
    border security around Yuma, Arizona?
        Ms. Gambler. Around Yuma, Arizona, in our work when DHS was
    using operational control as its performance measure for border
    security, Yuma reported that its miles were under operational
    control. That was up to fiscal year 2010.
        Mr. Gosar. I have to take a little leniency here because it
    actually is one of the shining stars in regard to border
    security. That is the proper answer. In fact, in that segment,
    there has not been an illegal border crossing in that 40 or 50
    miles in the Yuma sector for over six years, isn't that true?
        Ms. Gambler. I am not aware of that specifically.
        Mr. Gosar. When you come here to represent what DHS has
    proposed, we need to have success models and Yuma is a success
    model. It has border fence, it has a unified application of the
    law from border security to law enforcement, and what is even
    more important is actually prosecution. Is that not true?
        Is that not true that those folks from the Tucson sector do
    not want to be pushed to the Yuma sector because they are going
    to get prosecuted?
        Ms. Gambler. We haven't specifically looked at that issue.
        Mr. Gosar. I am having problems once again. I am having
    somebody from Homeland Security I see on a Senate bill that we
    are going to entertain that you are going to have border
    security all the way through and you have no metrics, you don't
    know what works, you don't site that working and you are still
    coming up that we are going to entrust you with border
    security.
        Once again, Ms. Gambler, I want to say trust is a series of
    promises kept. Tell me why I should have to trust in the DHS?
        I will yield back for the second round of questions.
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman, might I interject for a question
    here? Ms. Gambler, you are with the Government Accountability
    Office, not Homeland Security, right?
        Ms. Gambler. I am with the Government Accountability
    Office.
        Mr. Tierney. I hope that would absolve you from some of the
    information being sought from you or the position sought from
    you. I think you are doing an excellent job. I just wanted to
    clarify that she is not Homeland Security.
        The other thing I was going to ask was if the gentleman
    would produce the study you mentioned at the beginning of your
    questions, who the author was, and make that available for the
    committee?
        Mr. Gosar. You bet.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman
    from New York, Mrs. Maloney.
        Mrs. Maloney. Thank you for your hard work and for
    testimony today before the committee.
        I am concerned about commerce. Not only do we need to keep
    out bad products and homeland security and all that focus, but
    Mexico is a very important trading partner with America. It is
    our third largest trading partner. Our relationship has grown
    tremendously since NAFTA and significantly in the past years.
        Mexico has grown to be roughly $500 billion in bilateral
    trade. That is important to the economy of America and it is
    also sustained through the trade by some estimates of 6 million
    jobs in the United States. It has economic value that is
    important to our people. They say U.S. sales to Mexico are
    larger than all U.S. exports to the BRIC countries which are
    Brazil, Russia, India and China. In short, trade with Mexico is
    important for our jobs.
        I guess I should ask, Mr. Murphy, isn't it true that part
    of your profession is not only to protect the border but also
    to help facilitate trade between our two countries and at our
    ports of entry both land and sea. Is that true is that part of
    your goal, not only security, which is the number one priority,
    but also to allow legitimate fair trade?
        Mr. Murphy. You are absolutely right. We believe that
    border security and economic prosperity go hand in hand.
    Recently there was study done by USC, the Create Study, that
    showed by adding additional CBP personnel to ports of entry to
    help facilitate not only the border security aspect, but the
    trade facilitation aspect, it adds to the GDP, it reduces lost
    opportunity costs.
        We have partnered both with Canada and Mexico. We have our
    21st Century border and beyond the border initiatives. In
    Mexico, we are working on Otay Mesa and Laredo on pre-
    inspection pilots, so we are partnering very closely with
    Mexico. We recognize the importance of trade. It is the life
    blood of our economy. I think that CBP and OFO have
    particularly matured in recent years in recognizing that
    dynamic and the importance of that trade.
        Mrs. Maloney. You mentioned the Laredo site and port and
    that is a very important site. I understand that 700 of the
    Fortune 1000 companies do international business through that
    port. Can you give an example on the ground of how you protect
    against terrorists, illegal guns and really bad things coming
    into our Country and also allowing the trade that is necessary?
    How do you make that happen in a way that allows the trade but
    also has the significant strength to stop terrorists, illegal
    guns or other activities?
        Mr. Murphy. There are a number of ways. We brought
    technology, number one. We have our RPMs there obviously for
    the detection of nuclear-radiological elements. We also have
    our license plate readers. On the southwest border right now we
    have our RFID technology. Right now, 60 percent of the
    documents being used on the border are RFID compliant. We are
    trying to again enable both trusted trader programs and our
    trusted traveler programs.
        From the standpoint of the trade, we are trying to focus
    our resources there. We are working on the trusted trade
    program with our CTPAD. We have a number of programs and a
    number partners with the industry. Laredo is a huge industry of
    trade for the United States. We recognize that fact and have
    directed our resources.
        I mentioned earlier the Workload Staffing Model which is a
    way that we can direct and allocate resources where they are
    truly needed, both from a trade standpoint and also from an
    enforcement standpoint.
        Mrs. Maloney. I read a synopsis of a report that I believe
    came from Princeton University, one of the think tanks. I am
    going to find that report and get it to the Chairman. It said
    that a side effect of the increased border security was that
    more immigrants were staying in the Country, that usually a lot
    of Mexican workers would come in, do seasonal work and then
    leave and go back to Mexico. However, now because the border is
    becoming much tougher to get in and out off, they are just
    staying in America.
        I would ask if anyone would like to comment? Have you seen
    that? Is there any substance to the idea put forward by this
    report?
        Mr. Murphy. I have not seen that.
        Mrs. Maloney. You have not seen that. Anyone else want to
    comment?
        Ms. Gambler. We have not seen that study. We have not
    reviewed that.
        Mrs. Maloney. Or the idea, have you seen that is happening?
        Ms. Gambler. We have not evaluated that issue.
        Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I would now like to recognize myself for
    five minutes.
        In February, I told my staff, after several long weeks of
    working hard, if I could find two days where I could go
    someplace warm with some sand and they sent me to Arizona to
    tour the border fence. It was a big eye opener.
        Earlier, Mr. Fisher, we discussed the ultra lights. If I am
    not mistaken, Border Patrol received $100 million for the ultra
    light problem. That is an awful lot of money and yet we really
    have not seen any significant change. Can you tell me what
    seems to be the problem? You could probably post quite a few
    Border Patrol agents just to sit there and look up in the sky
    with $100 million. Nothing seems to be getting done because I
    keep hearing it is a problem from the boots on the ground.
        Mr. Fisher. It has been defined as an emerging threat over
    the last couple of years and continues to be so today. One of
    the things to take into consideration is ultralights can really
    take off and land pretty much anywhere. The whole area of
    operation for the smuggling organizations opens up that
    aperture than other areas that we have seen across the
    southwest border.
        We have and continue to experiment with ground-based radar,
    to be able to tweak the radar to make sure that we are able to
    identify low flying ultra lights and others that may be flying
    in that particular area. The truth of the matter is we still
    look to find out and adjust our policies.
        First and foremost, as a law enforcement organization, we
    enforce laws in the United States and we do so with a matter of
    consistency and compassion within the Constitution. One of the
    challenges we face right now is even if we detect an
    ultralight, identify it and are able to track it with a U-860
    or a Black Hawk helicopter, the end game, if you will, has not
    been established in terms of what we can do to that particular
    ultralight because in many cases the ultra light when it makes
    entry to the United States, does not land.
        It will simply kick out its cargo, which to this point has
    been narcotics, predominantly marijuana, and there is a ground
    crew that later picks up the marijuana and moves on. It does
    not land in the United States but turns around and goes back
    into Mexico.
        We are working with the Department and with science and
    technology, to increase the effectiveness by which we detect
    the entry in the first instance by the ultra lights and then
    continuing to work within the law enforcement framework on how
    we can mitigate this evolving threat.
        Mr. Bentivolio. According to Border Patrol agents, the $100
    million detection program has not worked and has been a waste
    of taxpayer money. Border Patrol says ``Ultralight aircraft are
    impossible to stop. We don't have the technology.'' This was
    also reaffirmed on my official tour of Nogales with the Border
    Patrol. Another Border Patrol agent states, ``difficult
    mission, define drop locations, intercept narcotics and arrest
    smugglers, success rates are low.'' Those are comments from the
    boots on the ground, those guys in the trenches.
        We have this very expensive fence. It is 18 feet tall. I am
    asking questions and I just want answers. You cannot put razor
    wire on top because people are hopping over the fence, people
    are driving up and actually with a torch, cutting through the
    steel and sending people in that way. Then they are welding it
    back so the Border Patrol does not see it. There are also a
    number of tunnels and no real detection.
        I asked about dogs. Is there some problem with employing
    more dogs with our Border Patrol agents?
        Mr. Fisher. Not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Instead of this $100 million on a system
    that does not work, we know dogs can detect things from the sky
    as well as on the ground. It is very low tech, maybe not as
    sexy, but what is your comment on that? Should we employ more
    dogs versus $100 million worth of high tech?
        Mr. Fisher. I would not suggest substituting canine and
    their handlers for technology or infrastructure. We employ
    approximately 300 canines and handlers throughout the border.
    They, along with horses and other types of technology we have,
    is a complement.
        The other thing to take into consideration, perhaps I would
    foot stomp this as well, is each section of the border is
    different. What may work in a place like Yuma, Arizona may not
    work in a place like Nogales. Some of the ultralight technology
    may not work in sections of El Paso, Texas but works really
    well in a place like El Centro, California.
        It is identifying the geography, the tactics, techniques
    and procedures of the criminal organizations, understanding how
    they operate, understanding the extent to which they are
    vulnerable so that we can then exploit that. There is no cookie
    cutter approach to be able to do that in my opinion.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
    Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        I would like to talk about the data issue. One thing that
    seems clear from today's hearing and from the Government
    Accountability Office's comprehensive review of the
    department's border security statistics is that the number of
    immigrants apprehended by the department or apprehensions has
    declined markedly along the southwest border between 2006 and
    2011.
        This amounted to about a 68 percent drop in apprehensions
    which seems to suggest the border enforcement is currently
    working. Ms. Gambler, do you infer this from the data, that the
    number of illegal border crossings has fallen and if so, isn't
    this a good thing?
        Ms. Gambler. The data we reported and that you cited was on
    apprehensions, so that is the number of illegal entrants the
    Border Patrol arrested. The data shows that apprehensions
    declined from fiscal year 2006 to 2011. The 2012 data reported
    by the Border Patrol indicate that apprehensions increased from
    fiscal year 2011 levels.
        In that report, we also provide data on estimated known
    illegal entrants by sector. Those numbers, as estimated by
    Border Patrol, did decrease in the southwest border sectors
    over that time.
        Ms. Kelly. The meaning of apprehensions data by itself
    seems to be the subject of some debate, it remains clear that
    the department continues to use this figure on an interim basis
    until it is able to develop an alternate approach and that
    poses some concerns. Ms. Gambler, how long has Border Patrol
    used the number of apprehensions as its interim performance
    goal?
        Ms. Gambler. They have been using that since fiscal year
    2011.
        Ms. Kelly. Chief Fisher, when will Border Patrol begin
    using a more comprehensive data point for measuring flows
    across the border?
        Mr. Fisher. We started developing those this year and will
    baseline this year and start with the new metrics in fiscal
    year 2014 which starts October 1.
        Ms. Kelly. Can you explain how the Border Patrol currently
    uses apprehensions data such as where to allocate resources?
        Mr. Fisher. The apprehension data, in and of itself, does
    not dictate where we deploy or redeploy resources. That
    decision is based on risk and it is done both in terms of my
    staff at headquarters looking at the strategic laydown of all
    forces within the northern, southern and coastal environments.
    It is really left in the hands of the field commanders in the
    field to be able to deploy and redeploy those resources within
    the areas that they have operational control.
        Ms. Kelly. If you were to get additional Border Patrol
    agents, where would you place them? Where do you see the
    biggest need?
        Mr. Fisher. We would look into areas for instance where we
    are unable perhaps to put fence or unable to put certain pieces
    of technology because it is a combination. It is not just
    putting in more Border Patrol agents. We have to do that in
    consultation with the field commanders and the Border Patrol
    agents to tell us what works or does not work. We would make
    sure we put the resources in the areas of highest risk along
    our borders and work out way back from there.
        Ms. Kelly. When you say they tell you what works and what
    does not work, how often do you check, every three months or
    every month? What is the evaluation process?
        Mr. Murphy. Quite frankly, with 21,370 Border Patrol
    agents, they are not shy to call me and let me know through
    email what works and what does not work. I appreciate their
    willingness to tell us in headquarters what is the best
    approach.
        Ms. Kelly. Ms. Gambler, do you have any current concerns
    about the apprehension data and how it is used?
        Ms. Gambler. In terms of the apprehensions data, that is
    data on the number of illegal entrants that the Border Patrol
    apprehends. In our December 2011 report, we did identify some
    limitations with the data that Border Patrol collects and
    estimates for what are called turnbacks and got-aways. The
    limitations with that data preclude Border Patrol from using
    that data to make comparisons in performance across sectors.
        Border Patrol issued updated guidance to the field in
    September 2012 to provide for a more common approach to
    estimating turnbacks and got-aways across the southwest border
    sectors and we understand that the Border Patrol sectors are
    implementing that guidance.
        Ms. Kelly. Chief, do you feel this will give a more
    complete data picture, including got-aways and turnbacks?
        Mr. Murphy. We are getting better at that but let me be
    clear, we have to be, I say we broadly, very careful of
    applying a very specific scientific method, in inaccuracy and
    certitude to a function and operation that does not allow that.
    We are going to do the best we can to determine how many people
    came in and of that number, how many people did we apprehend.
        No technology or system that I am aware of is going to,
    with 100 percent accuracy, make that determination going
    forward. It doesn't exist in other law enforcement
    organizations that I am aware of.
        Ms. Kelly. My time is up. Thank you.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I start my second line of questioning, I want to
    make a point that we make sure that Mr. Langlois has had an
    opportunity to come before this committee. Either he comes here
    or we go there because I think we need to have this discussion
    in front of the American people.
        Ms. Gambler, one of the things that I am critical about, to
    be honest with you I am a big fan of GAO, but you cited a
    number of studies in regard to the gentlewoman from Illinois. I
    need to see that same type of application from where we are
    coming from in Arizona. I want to see some equal latitude.
        Mr. Fisher, you just made a comment that works in Yuma does
    not work anywhere else but the principles are the same, are
    they not, deterrent, enforcement, apprehension and also going
    before justice. Isn't that true?
        Mr. Fisher. The principles and the strategy apply but the
    application in different geographic areas do not.
        Mr. Gosar. I am happy with that.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Murphy, in your
    testimony you said ``A secure border means living free from
    fear in their towns and cities.'' Do you feel the folks in
    southern Arizona can actually say that today?
        Mr. Fisher. In some locations, that would be accurate and
    in others, probably not.
        Mr. Gosar. Some. How about you?
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gosar. I would say if we really want to start making
    this deterrent or dictation, probably about the 50 miles coming
    from the California border is secure; beyond going into the
    Tucson sector from that 50 miles, not secure. We have some type
    of problem with the Tucson sector and going further east, we
    have bigger problems, do we not?
        Mr. Fisher. In somewhat of a west to east quick look at the
    border. As you mentioned, that is always going to fluctuate
    with the criminal organizations adjusting their operations.
        Mr. Gosar. I know. From what I understand, we have a
    problem in the Tucson sector. It has shifted more to the Texas
    side. You are right but there are still some generalities that
    we can hold true, can we not?
        Mr. Fisher. Certainly.
        Mr. Gosar. Can we put the slide on the screen? These signs
    were found posted not at the border, not within 20 miles of the
    border, but were posted 80 miles from the border. Local law
    enforcement officers in addition to Customs and Border Patrol
    officers told us that our policies are failing, that the
    enforcement measures are so shoddy that it is equivalent to
    ceding parts of our great Country to cartels.
        I am saddened by the terrible amount of illegal activity on
    our southern border but I am down right angry that the Federal
    Government isn't doing its part to protect its own citizens. I
    do think that thousands of agents and officers that put their
    lives on the line day in and day but it seems there is such a
    disconnect between those on the front lines and the bureaucrats
    that have marched up here on the Hill to tell us what they
    think and what we want to hear.
        Thankfully, from time to time, we bypass the so-called
    proper channels and go directly to the source, which is what I
    do, I am a science guy, to get the raw intelligence before it
    is scrubbed and framed here in Washington.
        I have talked to numerous CBP agents during my time in
    Congress. The story they paint is far different than the one
    painted by DHS representatives here today and in the news media
    at large. One agent told me that the methods for counting
    border crossings are completely inadequate as the officers are
    told to count tracks going north.
        The problem is that the drug runners cover their tracks
    very carefully going north because they don't want to be
    tracked. The number found going north is often actually less
    than those found going south because the cartel members don't
    care if they are being apprehended going south. They have
    already dropped off their drugs and since they are already
    going south, they might as well get a free ride home.
        Another agent told me that when he first started, one of
    his supervisors started a meeting one day by saying
    ``Apprehensions are down. We are not catching as many people.''
    This particular officer lowered his head feeling that he and
    his colleagues were about to be scolded for not doing their
    job. He couldn't imagine when to his surprise he was
    congratulated and told ``good job'' by that same supervisor.
        One agent, a man who puts his life on the line each day,
    referred to the apprehension metrics by measuring border
    control as asinine. Whereas Napolitano, our Secretary, claims
    the border is safe and secure, better than at any time before,
    the people who actually do this for a living estimate they
    might apprehend 20 percent of border crossings on a good day.
        One of possibly the most discouraging and shameful things
    that I have been told by a CBP agent on the ground is they feel
    they signed up for one job when they actually have two jobs.
    They say their job is to fight the drug cartels and the so-
    called coyotes, but all they say their job is a constant fight
    with the Federal Government. In their words, they have to fight
    their own employer to do the job they were hired for. This is a
    situation that could only be created by this town.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you consider having another
    hearing at a later date in which we can invite CBP officers and
    other State and local officers from the front lines who are
    actually able to offer some real perspectives, highlight the
    real problems and help guide us toward a real solution.
        When we start looking at the border, it is a fascinating
    issue. We have Forest Service, we have primitive areas and we
    have to have a common sense policy in which to have
    apprehensions to make this Country secure. I would like to hear
    from the Border Patrol agents directly.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Mica.
        Mr. Mica. First of all, I want to echo Dr. Gosar's
    comments. I have absolutely had it with the officials who
    refuse to appear before our committee. This is the chief
    investigative panel of the House of Representatives. What's
    this guys name Langlois? You are Acting Chair right now but I
    want a meeting staff with Mr. Chaffetz and Mr. Issa. I want
    these people held responsible.
        We will subpoena Mr. Langlois' butt in here or they will
    appear before us one way or the other. This is the last time
    this is going to happen that I will be involved in any of the
    subcommittees or the full committee and have particularly a DHS
    staffer, this is an important position, not just any staffer,
    not appear before this committee. It is important that he
    appear with these other witnesses.
        I am absolutely frosted and this is the last time I
    guarantee you. They will regret not appearing before our
    committee. I don't care who it is.
        Again, I know you are Acting Chair right now. Staff, I want
    a meeting within the next 24 hours with Chairman Chaffetz and
    also Mr. Issa and if we have to bring the other side of the
    aisle in, whatever it is going to take. Again, I am not very
    pleased that we would have again the Associate Director for
    Refugee, Asylum and International Operations, thumb his nose at
    a legitimate request timely given to appear before this
    subcommittee of Congress.
        I have some questions. Who oversees procurement of some of
    the equipment? Who would have the most knowledge? Do both of
    you have equal knowledge?
        I was not here earlier but you are looking at mobile rather
    than the fixed surveillance system, is that correct?
        Mr. Fisher. That is correct.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Murphy, correct?
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. I have information from a whistleblower that
    there are several types of surveillance equipment available.
    One is available at $54 million and the second is available at
    over $100 million. Are you aware of the two principal types of
    mobile surveillance equipment that you are using?
        Mr. Fisher. I am not aware of that.
        Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
        Mr. Mica. I want you to be aware of it. This is information
    I have that you are dividing the contract. I am not interested
    in the 50 percent premium that the taxpayers pay on this mobile
    equipment. I want a report back from one or both of you on what
    is going on, what kind of equipment is being purchased, why you
    are paying twice as much for some equipment that has the same
    capability, I am told, as the other equipment, okay? Do you get
    it?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Back to the committee through myself or the
    Chair, I want a report on why you are paying twice as much for
    some equipment that has the same capability as others. We have
    very limited amount of money, isn't that correct, gentlemen?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes.
        Mr. Murphy. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. We are constrained. This is something that has
    been brought to my attention by a whistleblower. I want it
    verified and documented exactly what you are doing.
        Now let us go to border crossings and protection. There are
    three different types of entry documents, four actually, the
    passport, global entry, you can get in with a global entry
    card, do you have to have a passport too? Murphy, Fisher?
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. Based on the Western Hemisphere
    Travel Initiative, we took about 8,000 different documents out
    there and there's just a few but with the passport.
        Mr. Mica. You get in with a global entry by itself, yes or
    no?
        Mr. Murphy. I will have to get back to you.
        Mr. Mica. What is your position?
        Mr. Murphy. I am the Acting Assistant Commissioner for
    Field Operations.
        Mr. Mica. You can't tell me whether I can get in or out
    with a global entry card?
        Mr. Murphy. In order to get the global entry card, you have
    to have that document and your face will appear on the screen
    when you are coming through.
        Mr. Mica. Can someone entering the United States from
    Canada or Mexico or somewhere come in with just a global entry
    card?
        Mr. Murphy. I will have to get back to you, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Dear God, please don't tell me--you are acting.
    That is pretty scary.
        There are two other documents. One is what, NEXUS and FAST.
    NEXUS is Canadian for Canada. FAST is?
        Mr. Murphy. Cargo, through trucks.
        Mr. Mica. What is the one for Mexico? Is there a card for
    Mexico?
        Mr. Murphy. There is Century, FAST, NEXUS and global entry.
        Mr. Mica. We have all these cards. I had a hearing a couple
    weeks ago on ID cards which again that so and so from DHS isn't
    here so we cannot go after him because they are responsible for
    overseeing some of the standards. We have all these cards. None
    of them have a dual biometric capability, is that right?
        Mr. Murphy. Dual metric in terms of?
        Mr. Mica. Fingerprints and iris would be biometric.
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, it is fingerprint.
        Mr. Mica. But they do not have dual?
        Mr. Murphy. Right.
        Mr. Mica. We had someone testify from the hearing last
    week, get the transcript, from the FBI that fingerprints can be
    altered; they are not secure. The only secure means of
    identification that is guaranteed would be dual biometric. That
    is iris and fingerprint. We do not have anything with iris,
    NEXUS, FAST, global entry, passport, Century, right?
        Mr. Murphy. I believe we are looking at the iris but I
    don't believe we have it.
        Mr. Mica. For 11 or 12 years, I asked that be done in law
    after 2001. I think in 2002, repeated it in law several times.
    Here, again we do not have a DHS person to testify.
        We have a document being used that can be undependable and
    you don't know if global entry can be used to get in. What
    about the others? Can they get in from Canada with the NEXUS
    card?
        Mr. Murphy. I apologize, sir. I know you have to have that
    card.
        Mr. Mica. Dear God, where do they send these people from?
        Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Mica, we are going to have to wrap it
    up.
        Mr. Mica. Wait a second. Did you have two rounds?
        Mr. Bentivolio. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. That is my first round, so I will go into my
    second round. Did you have a waiting Democrat who wants to go
    first?
        Mr. Bentivolio. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. We will let her go and then I will come back. I
    will try to recover in the meantime.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Lujan
    Grisham.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you to the panel.
        I am in an interesting position from New Mexico in that we
    have a small, unique border from New Mexico to Mexico but are
    affected primarily by the border at El Paso, but we don't get
    the same border health investments, don't get the same federal
    investments for border protection issues that are beyond the
    border itself but invest in the State.
        We are affected by trade issues which I know have been a
    topic this morning in terms of some of the questions. We are
    affected by the efficacy of what you do on the border. We have
    public safety issues and we also have one of the highest drug
    trafficking and substance abuse problems per capita in the
    Country.
        As a proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, which I
    think helps us with border activity because now we have a legal
    pathway for folks to go back and forth, I am absolutely
    concerned about security issues. I think, given the topics of
    the questions today, is really for Ms. Gambler.
        Of all the investments, we have had significant investments
    and watching what is occurring in the Senate, there is momentum
    for even more investments at the border, tell me which of those
    investments, personnel, equipment, fencing, high tech
    investments, are the most effective? I need to know that both
    in terms of whether it is a cost effective aspect or whether it
    is giving you those protections that we are interested in
    having occur at the border?
        Ms. Gambler. Your question gets at a key takeaway from a
    number of GAO reports we have issued looking at CBP's efforts
    to deploy technology, infrastructure and personnel along the
    border. That takeaway is that the department has been
    challenged to be able to identify the contributions that its
    investments have been making to border security.
        For example, we recommended that the department conduct a
    cost effective assessment to be able to assess the
    contributions that tactical infrastructure and fencing have
    made to border security. With regard to technology and our
    review of DHS' new technology plan for placing surveillance
    technologies along the southwest border, we recommended that
    DHS identify the benefits and metrics for assessing
    implementation of the plan and the technologies going forward.
        Your question gets at a key takeaway from a number of
    reports we have issued on border security efforts.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. I am hearing from my colleagues on both
    sides that while we know we have to do that, we have to perform
    those evaluations. We don't have that concrete information. In
    your opinion, given unprecedented investments, I am concerned
    about whether they are making the difference we need, should
    our next set of funds, assuming they move forward, be
    contingent upon those assessments and you can only draw down if
    you can demonstrate that in fact it is going to be a cost
    effective investment that also brings about real results at the
    border?
        Ms. Gambler. That would certainly be a policy call for
    Congress but our recommendations have gone to the need for DHS
    to be able to assess the benefits from its investments and the
    contributions those investment are making to its border
    security efforts.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. If we don't do that, the reality is, and
    I hope, you have immigration reform, continue to make sure we
    do have secure borders, invest in technology that we will be
    using in other places and efforts and if we don't do it in a
    contingent, effective manner, then we will not, regardless of
    the policy decisions we make here, have an effective
    environment for protecting and securing the border while making
    sure that the trade takes place and legal travel back and forth
    across the border is not minimized but is accepted in a
    productive and safe manner.
        Based on the testimony today, I am very concerned that we
    don't have that information readily available to us. That
    minimizes any of the efforts that we make here in Congress. Is
    that a fair statement? Anybody can answer. 23 whole seconds. No
    takers? Come on. Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. I think we are working very hard to identify
    our risks. And again, not to beat a dead horse I think our Work
    Group Staffing Model is helping us identify areas that need
    additional resources and basically trying to take more of a
    business transformational type of look at our processes and how
    we do business.
        Ms. Lujan Grisham. It sounds like we may not be as ready as
    we should be.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
    from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To the previous comment by the gentlelady from New Mexico,
    therein lies the problem, trying to get us to do comprehensive
    immigration reform at a time when we cannot assure our
    constituents, the people we work for, that the border is
    secure, is a non-starter. When I go home, all I hear about is
    secure the border first, then we will talk about comprehensive
    immigration reform. I hear that from all aspects, from all of
    my constituents.
        I cannot tell them that we have accomplished step one,
    secure the border, which is their green light to move forward
    on comprehensive immigration reform. This is not a new
    condition that the American people, especially those from non-
    border States, have put on us. They have been telling us for
    years secure the border first, then we will talk about
    comprehensive immigration reform.
        There is a bill that probably passed the Senate today that
    will comprehensively reform immigration. It is not going to
    pass the House because we have not addressed the one condition
    the American people have put on us before they will allow us to
    have a robust conversation about comprehensive immigration
    reform. We haven't secured the border.
        My constituents have asked me this repeatedly. Is a fence
    the least expensive, most effective way to secure the border in
    land to land border crossings? Mr. Fisher, is that true?
        Mr. Fisher. In some locations, that would be true, yes.
        Mrs. Lummis. Do we have a fence in every location where
    that is true?
        Mr. Fisher. That I don't know but I should add it is not
    just the fence because anywhere you would have a fence, which
    predominantly you would put in places because you have
    identified it as high risk which is attributed by a lot of
    illegal crossings in between the ports of entry, just having
    the fence in and of itself does not necessarily guarantee
    border security.
        Mrs. Lummis. The Corker Amendment that is being discussed
    in the Senate, I don't know whether it passed or failed, would
    add 700 miles of fence and 20,000 troops on our border to
    defend our border. If you were me and you go home every weekend
    and your constituents are telling you secure the border, secure
    the border, would you vote for the Corker Amendment?
        Mr. Fisher. Representative, I am not in the position to put
    myself in your position although there are similar
    circumstances. When I do go home, my wife and son ask me the
    same question and we have a very interesting discussion about
    that, so I can understand the challenges that you and certainly
    other members of the committee are looking at right now as it
    relates to the current legislation.
        Mrs. Lummis. What are you telling your wife and child?
        Mr. Fisher. I try to change the subject.
        Mrs. Lummis. I will bet you do. Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. It is a very important issue.
        Mrs. Lummis. Let me ask, the Corker Amendment, 20,000
    troops, 700 miles of fence on our southern border, would you
    vote for that amendment?
        Mr. Murphy. I don't think I could put myself in your
    position to answer that.
        Mrs. Lummis. Do you have the same conversation with your
    family that Mr. Fisher does?
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, I do.
        Mrs. Lummis. What do you tell them?
        Mr. Murphy. I tell them that we have men and women out
    there doing the best we can with what we have.
        Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Homan, would you vote for the Corker
    Amendment if you were me and your constituents, every weekend
    when you went home, said, secure the border first, then we will
    let you talk about comprehensive immigration reform? Would you
    vote for the Corker Amendment?
        Mr. Homan. I don't think I am in a position to give my
    opinion on that.
        Mrs. Lummis. Do you have a family that you discuss these
    things with?
        Mr. Homan. No. My wife wants me to retire.
        About border security, I think we are doing more with our
    partners in the Border Patrol than we have ever done before.
    There are a couple operations we are currently doing with the
    Border Patrol. For instance, we talk about the Alien Transfer
    Exit Program, ATEP, where if a Mexican national crosses the
    border illegally in Texas, rather than returning them back to
    Texas and they make multiple reentries, we take custody of
    them, detain them, transport them to another State for removal.
        That separates them from the alien smuggling operations so
    you hurt the criminal smuggling organization and cuts down the
    recidivism. Now that alien is out of his area, he doesn't know
    the area, so chances are he is not going to cross again.
        Mrs. Lummis. I am glad to hear we are making progress but
    let me ask you, is our border secure? Is our southern border
    secure?
        Mr. Homan. I do not have resources on the border, we do not
    control the border.
        Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Murphy, is our southern border secure?
        Mr. Murphy. I think we are working toward that end.
        Mrs. Lummis. Is it now? If I go home this weekend, can I
    tell my constituents, and they are going to ask, is our border
    secure? What should I say? What would you say if you were me?
        Mr. Murphy. We are doing our best.
        Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Fisher, what would you say?
        Mr. Fisher. I would say in certain sections along the
    border, that is, in fact true, the border is secure.
        Mrs. Lummis. Can you give us the sections where it is not
    secure? Can you show us a map and show us where it is not
    secure?
        Mr. Fisher. In some locations.
        Mrs. Lummis. Can you advise us, in those locations, those
    some locations where you can tell us, can you tell us how to
    make it secure?
        Mr. Fisher. We are in the process of building that right
    now.
        Mrs. Lummis. When will that process be completed?
        Mr. Fisher. Probably in the next few months.
        Mrs. Lummis. When you get it, are you going to share it
    with us?
        Mr. Fisher. It would be my intention to do so but that
    would not be my call.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
    from Illinois, Ms. Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. I just have another question about the data.
    Clearly the Border Patrol also collects data other than
    apprehensions and the Government Accountability Office has also
    reviewed this data. For instance, GAO analyzed the percentage
    of repeat border crossers and found that figure had declined
    also between 2006 and 2011.
        Ms. Gambler, do these indicators paint roughly the same
    picture as apprehensions that the number of illegal border
    crossings may have declined over the last six years and what
    else you think they tell us?
        Ms. Gambler. The recidivism rate data we looked at covered
    the period from fiscal year 2008 to 2011. It found that the
    recidivism rate across the southwest border decreased by six
    percent during that time. The recidivism rate looks at
    estimated known illegal entrants who were apprehended more than
    once, so it is not exactly the same as looking at data on just
    apprehensions. It is looking at the number who have been
    apprehended more than once.
        Ms. Kelly. I also wanted to make a comment that I totally
    understand on both sides of the aisle in this committee that
    when we call someone, we expect the person to be here and
    expect the person to answer our questions. It is also my
    understanding that the gentleman has offered to sit down with
    staff. I just want to make sure we give him a little credit for
    that but I too agree that when we call people, they should come
    to session but from my understanding, he has offered to sit
    down with staff.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. Mica.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let us go back to the identifications used for entry at the
    border. Either Mr. Fisher or Mr. Murphy, are you familiar with
    any of the technical boards that approve the credentials used
    for crossing the border? Mr. Fisher?
        Mr. Fisher. I am not, no.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. No, sir.
        Mr. Mica. This is why it is difficult to conduct this
    hearing without someone responsible from DHS who can answer
    these questions.
        We have at least five documents I cited and none of them
    have dual biometric capability. Do you know, Mr. Fisher, if
    again those documents can be used by themselves, either global
    entry, NEXUS, FAST or Century?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't know that, sir. That is not my area of
    expertise.
        Mr. Mica. Again, I think as Chief of U.S. Border Customs
    and Protection, you should know which documents can be used. I
    am not able to question, again whether or not there is any
    coordination in the development of those documents and what
    they contain, the capability that they contain.
        How many individuals were apprehended last year, Mr. Homan,
    maybe you have already told the subcommittee, crossing the
    borders illegally?
        Mr. Homan. I don't have the number of illegal aliens
    crossing the border but I can tell you we arrested, processed
    and removed 410,000.
        Mr. Mica. You removed 410,000 back to their original point
    of entry or whatever country they came from?
        Mr. Homan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. How many were incarcerated in the United States
    last year at any time? Would that be all of them? Is there a
    population of illegals in our prisons?
        Mr. Homan. Yes, of the 410,000 removed last year, 225,000
    of those were convicted criminals.
        Mr. Mica. How many were convicted?
        Mr. Homan. Two hundred twenty-five thousand, 55 percent of
    the 410,000 were convicted criminals.
        Mr. Mica. Did you detain those convicted criminals?
        Mr. Homan. Yes. Our strategic approach has four priorities:
    those that are a threat to national security and community
    safety which are convicted criminals; recent border entrants
    and those that are fugitives.
        Mr. Mica. Taxpayers foot the cost while they are in prison.
    Do we also pay their legal costs? Are they read any rights?
        Mr. Homan. No, we are an administrative process. If they
    get convicted of crimes, they do their time in whatever State
    or federal facility. We get them after the fact and we do try
    to process them for removal while they are still in custody of
    the law enforcement agencies so we don't incur unnecessary
    costs.
        Mr. Mica. Are they entitled to any kind of legal counsel
    that we provide or they can get their own counsel?
        Mr. Homan. They can get their own counsel. Under
    administrative remove procedures, they are not entitled to a
    paid attorney.
        Mr. Mica. They are not. Any idea as to the cost of
    incarcerating these individuals?
        Mr. Homan. In our custody or in the custody of law
    enforcement?
        Mr. Mica. What is your cost and is there an estimate on the
    cost of incarceration?
        Mr. Homan. ERO is funded at 34,000 beds a year and those
    beds turn over quickly. Our funding for detention operations is
    about $1.7 billion.
        Mr. Mica. I saw a number of Customs and Border Patrol
    people were killed historically, maybe in the last decade. Have
    most of the culprits been apprehended, Mr. Murphy or Mr.
    Fisher, do you know?
        Mr. Fisher. Over the last few years, there have been
    arrests of individuals where there was enough evidence to
    warrant their arrest that were attributed to violence against
    Border Patrol agents and in some cases, killing of Border
    Patrol agents and CBP officers.
        Mr. Mica. I remember working with the Reagan Administration
    when they killed Kiki Camarena. I think the way Reagan handled
    it was he closed the borders for a while but we still have
    people who haven't been apprehended who have killed our agents,
    isn't that correct?
        Mr. Fisher. That is correct.
        Mr. Mica. That is kind of a sad commentary. I think we need
    to do everything possible to target those individuals. It might
    be a good use of drones to take them out when you kill an
    enforcement officer or Border Patrol personnel of the United
    States.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Did you have more questions?
        Mr. Mica. No. I would like the staff to send a letter and I
    have asked for a response on this paying twice as much. I guess
    they divided the contract between a couple vendors. One of the
    pieces of equipment I understand costs twice as much as the
    other. It is nice to divide the contract, but I don't really
    care about that. I am looking at the taxpayer cost. It has the
    same capabilities but I want to find out about that mobile
    surveillance equipment, the acquisition and cost of the
    equipment, difference in any capability and what would justify
    paying twice as much for the same thing.
        We will have the meeting with the Chair of the subcommittee
    and the full committee Chair on calling in the DHS witness.
        Other than that, I appreciate the courtesy.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
        I have a few more questions. Mr. Fisher, you testified
    earlier that part of the border is secure and other parts are
    not. What parts of the border are unsecured?
        Mr. Fisher. These would be areas where generally we don't
    have access to the immediate border, we don't have full-time
    deployments of Border Patrol agents and we have very little or
    in many cases, nonexistent technology. It is only in those
    areas where intelligence leads us to believe that criminal
    organizations may be exploiting those areas.
        We adjust our resources accordingly. That is what I meant
    by in some cases, the border is more secure than in others.
        Mr. Bentivolio. What percentage is unsecured?
        Mr. Fisher. I don't have a percentage. It is very difficult
    to identify a percentage.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Miles?
        Mr. Fisher. It is even harder to distinguish miles because
    it fluctuates.
        Mr. Bentivolio. What particular areas, Texas, New Mexico,
    Arizona?
        Mr. Fisher. All across the southwest border are sections
    that are considered secure and other sections that are less
    secure. As a good example, there is a five mile stretch in San
    Diego. My recent post was as Chief in San Diego. That five
    miles is between San Ysidro port of entry and the Otay Mesa
    port of entry. You may have visited it on one of your recent
    border tours.
        That section of the border has been pointed out to me over
    the last couple of years as exactly what we need the whole
    southwest border to look like because within that five mile
    stretch, CBP has over the years put in a single fence, had all
    weather roads, there is a secondary fence between 15 and 18
    feet high and on top of that secondary fence we have razor wire
    triple stranded, by the way, across that. There are hundreds of
    unattended ground sensors in and around that secondary fence
    area. We have integrated fixed towers that provide 7-24
    surveillance and Border Patrol agents routinely deploy that.
    Very few people cross that section of the border.
        If you also look over the last ten years of the
    predominance in tunneling activity along the southwest border,
    that area is the most exploited.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you but I am looking for what part of
    the border is unsecured? You mentioned that part of the border
    is secure and the other part is unsecured. Now you are back
    pedaling saying it is not as secure. It is either secure or not
    secure.
        Mr. Fisher. That is a really interesting point because when
    you look at security, it is not an either/or proposition. It is
    the state of the border at any particular time. Any section of
    the border that we say is secure is potentially continuing to
    be exploited.
        Mr. Bentivolio. You said part of the border is less secure.
        Mr. Fisher. That is correct.
        Mr. Bentivolio. You are saying at certain times, all of the
    border is unsecured and sometimes it is secured? I am confused.
    I would like to help you fix the border and make sure it is
    secure, 100 percent of the time, 24/7, but you are telling me
    part of the border is not secured. What geographical area is
    unsecured?
        Mr. Fisher. There are certain segments. We talked about
    Arizona earlier in the west desert, in and around the Tohono
    O'odham Nation. That is one particular area where I would
    qualify right now because we have less security in that
    particular area than we do in other parts of Arizona.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Do you have a map?
        Mr. Fisher. I can get a map. I don't have one with me.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I would like to see a map. I am an old
    soldier and my perimeter is going to be secure. When I go to
    sleep at night, I want to know I have people out there to
    protect my perimeter.
        Mr. Fisher. Understood, sir.
        Mr. Bentivolio. You know how it works, right?
        Mr. Fisher. I do.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Americans want to go to sleep at night
    knowing their perimeter is secure. I want to know, like a
    soldier, what part is the weakest, what is the strongest and
    what can we do to fix it?
        Mr. Fisher. Certainly. That is understandable.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I have just a few more questions. I was
    reading a blog from Debbie Sushgall, a blogger. What does she
    mean by the term reverse escort? Can any of you answer that
    question? Mr. Homan?
        Mr. Homan. I can answer that question. The activity in Rio
    Grande Valley spiked a couple months ago and since has gone
    down but we have seen an increase in other new Mexican arrests,
    citizens from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the three
    major populations.
        We have a congressionally mandated cap on overtime. My
    office is going to make so much in overtime and a lot of the
    arrests the Border Patrol is unaccompanied juveniles. These are
    nationals under the age of 18. We are only allowed to detain
    them up to 72 hours before we turn them over to Health and
    Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
        With the surge in the unaccompanied alien juvenile arrests
    that we have in custody, we are by law and the statute supposed
    to turn them over to HHS. They have facilities all across the
    Country. We contact them, saying we have a juvenile in custody,
    where do we take them. We have to deliver that unaccompanied
    juvenile to them so they can place them in a facility
    comparable for a juvenile.
        My officers were doing so many escorts of these juveniles,
    they were bumping against the overtime cap, so the cost is the
    same for an officer to go from San Antonio to Detroit to drop
    off a juvenile to Health and Human Services and fly back to San
    Antonio, it is a fixed cost. Since we were bouncing against the
    cap, what we are asking the officers to do rather than have
    this guy exceed the cap, we are having the Detroit officer fly
    to San Antonio, pick up the juvenile and take him back to
    Detroit, same cost across the board.
        It is a way to deal with our budget, a way to deal with the
    mandate of the limit of overtime we can pay our officers.
        Mr. Bentivolio. According to the blog, they are saying
    immigration agents are dropping them off in sanctuaries,
    awaiting amnesty.
        Mr. Homan. That is not accurate. My officers turn them over
    to Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
    They have contracts with certain people that detain the
    juvenile, makes sure he gets his medical and food until he gets
    a hearing from the immigration judge and gets ordered removed.
        You would have to talk to Health and Human Services about
    how they bill out that contract and who they contract with to
    house the juveniles but that is totally taken out of context.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The other question is why would you fly a
    juvenile or anybody from Texas, Arizona or New Mexico to
    Detroit to await trial or some kind of disposition?
        Mr. Homan. Health and Human Services ran out of beds in
    Texas. They have contracts all over the Country. Juvenile
    aliens are arrested all over the 50 States. Because of the
    shortage in the Rio Grande Valley, Health and Human Services
    ran out of contract beds in Texas, so now HHS tells us here is
    where there is availability to take care of this child, here is
    where you bring them. Again, that is Health and Human Services'
    call on where there contracts are for bedding.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you clarifying that.
        This catch and release thing, I toured Eloy, a holding
    facility or prison? What do you call it?
        Mr. Homan. It is a detention facility.
        Mr. Bentivolio. A detention facility, thank you. I
    understand you only have so much bed space.
        Mr. Homan. We are funded for 34,000 beds.
        Mr. Bentivolio. At Eloy?
        Mr. Homan. No.
        Mr. Bentivolio. One thousand five hundred sixty, about
    1,500, right?
        Mr. Homan. Approximately.
        Mr. Bentivolio. If all those beds are filled and you have
    30 that you just caught, where do they go?
        Mr. Homan. At the beginning of the year, we actually had
    over 37,000, actually overburdening the budget because our
    enforcement strategy that makes sense. If we are completely
    full and are beyond budget, as aliens come into custody, we
    need to make a determination. Is there somebody sitting in a
    bed that is a non-criminal, a non-mandatory case, maybe has
    U.S. citizen kids, maybe a child serving in the Armed Forces,
    can we put him in an alternative form of detention, maybe an
    ankle bracelet and monitor him, release him and make that bed
    available for the priority case.
        We save our beds for priority cases which are criminal
    aliens, those who threaten national security and recent border
    crossers. Actually increased the beds in Texas to make sure we
    can detain recent border crossers because I think that is
    important border control strategy.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The Border Patrol agents tell me that they
    get a message saying beds are filled and they don't respond or
    they don't make a big effort capturing all the 26, maybe only
    capture three or four. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Homan. No. What I can tell you is, as a matter of
    practice, we detain all recent border entrants. We have brought
    on a couple thousand more beds in Texas to deal with the
    influx. There are situations where somebody is released from
    our custody, we release people every day, like every jail does,
    maybe we can't get a travel document. Maybe he is from Somalia
    and maybe we cannot get a travel document to Somalia.
        We have a Supreme Court decision in Zabeda that says we can
    only detain someone up to six months. If there is no
    significant likelihood of removal, we must release them as long
    as they are not a danger to the community.
        As Border Patrol gives us the aliens, we make it a priority
    to detain those aliens. If they are unaccompanied juveniles, we
    will turn them over to HHS so they are released from our
    custody. If they claim fear and are interviewed by CIS and CIS
    finds a claim of fear positive, that alien becomes eligible for
    bond.
        We release aliens all the time on bond, if they meet bonds
    set by the judge. If there is a humanitarian concern, maybe an
    alien comes to our attention, we find out is a sole caregiver
    for a child and that person is not a danger to the community,
    he might be better served in an alternative form of detention.
        Mr. Bentivolio. We have heard reports of significant
    increases in other than Mexicans, OTMs, crossing our southwest
    border. In fact, Chairman Chaffetz tweeted about nine Romanians
    apprehended crossing the southwest border during his recent
    trip and some Arizona news outlets are reporting an increase in
    Indian nationals, more than 1,000 since January this year
    crossing in that State. What other countries are they coming
    from?
        Mr. Homan. The big majority right now in order is
    Guatemala, the biggest, Honduras and El Salvador. Let me
    explain what we did with that. We were bringing so many OTMs
    into custody, we have way over 37,000. I instructed my staff to
    meet with the governments of Guatemala, Honduras and El
    Salvador and start a pilot program.
        Usually, these nationals are in detention for 10 to 20 days
    before a government official from Guatemala would interview
    them. They have to interview them and make sure they are
    nationals of their country and issue a travel document. It took
    20 days so the beds were backing up.
        I issued instructions to start a pilot program with
    agreement from the governments. We made equipment available for
    Guatemala and Honduras and they are doing the interviews now
    through a pilot program within 24 hours. They are issuing a
    travel document within 24 hours. I reassigned some flight hours
    to Central America, so we surged Central American flights. In
    the last two weeks we removed over 5,000 OTMs to their country
    through this pilot program, so that got my bed level down.
        As far as the East Indians in Arizona, CBP can speak to
    that but it is my understanding because we are getting them in
    custody that they are actually surrendering themselves at a
    port of entry and claiming fear. At that point, the processes
    will contact CIS, CIS arranges an interview and tries to make
    the determination is that fear credible. If that determination
    is yes, he has a substantiated credible fear of returning to
    his homeland, then that alien becomes eligible for release
    either under bond or other supervisory release.
        Mr. Bentivolio. They are claiming fear, these nine
    Romanians. It was my understanding they went to trial or went
    before a judge, were released on bond of some sort and never
    showed back up.
        Mr. Homan. I am unfamiliar with the Romanians. I know about
    the East Indian issue because it is well over 1,000 we have in
    retention that we are dealing with CIS. I am unfamiliar with
    the Romanian case. Last year, we removed aliens from over 150
    countries, so we see aliens from every country on the planet.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Walk me through this. Somebody comes to
    Eloy, they go before a judge.
        Mr. Homan. On Mexican nationals, we can turn them around
    pretty quickly. On OTMs, before we can remove them to their
    homeland, they have to be interviewed by officials of their
    country to ascertain that they are in fact a citizen of
    Guatemala. After that interview, the Guatemalan government will
    issue a travel document. That identifies the person as a
    national of that country and that allows us to repatriate them
    to that country.
        We arrest somebody and they are an OTM and we set them up
    for an immigration hearing. They will see an immigration judge
    if they request a hearing.
        Mr. Bentivolio. How many show up after you release them?
        Mr. Homan. It depends. If they are released under some sort
    of ordered supervision, maybe an anklet bracelet, ATD shows
    about 80 percent show rate at the hearing. Those released on
    OR, the appearance rate is lower.
        Those arrested crossing the border, the Border Patrol will
    process them as an expedited removal. An expedited removal is a
    removal order in itself, so they don't have to see a judge.
    When the Border Patrol processes them as expedited removal,
    they come to my custody. We get a quick interview from the host
    government, they issue a travel document and remove them.
        The only time a hearing comes into effect is if they are
    claiming fear and they get to go through NCIS and later an
    immigration judge. If they are not an expedited removal case,
    if we arrest them in the interior, we cannot process them
    expedited removal, we have to give them a notice to appear in
    front of an immigration judge.
        Mr. Bentivolio. What percentage of OTMs, do you have an
    average number in detention facilities?
        Mr. Homan. At the time we started the pilot, we had
    approximately 34,000 in custody and approximately 7,000 to
    8,000 OTMs.
        Mr. Bentivolio. The rest are?
        Mr. Homan. Citizens of Mexico.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Eighty percent show up.
        Mr. Homan. The ADT metric, when we release someone on ADT
    or ankle bracelet, the appearance rate on that and other forms
    of reporting, telephonic reporting, could be an officer doing a
    bed check at their residence, we have an 80 percent appearance
    rate for those released to alternative detention.
        Mr. Bentivolio. So, at least 20 percent did not appear?
        Mr. Homan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bentivolio. How many people is that approximately,
    10,000? You are talking 400,000 people you processed.
        Mr. Homan. Actually we had intake of 475,000 last year, we
    removed 410,000. Some are still fighting their cases. We have
    some cases that go to immigration court, they will get a final
    order of removal and they will appeal that to the Board of
    Immigration Appeals. They can go further and appeal once more
    to the circuit court. We have a lot of aliens with final orders
    sitting in our beds that we cannot remove because they have
    appeals pending.
        Mr. Bentivolio. You have 400,000 plus; 20 percent of that
    is 80,000 people that never show back up.
        Mr. Homan. Our current fugitive operation backlog, people
    ordered removed and have fled, they have not been removed, is
    462,000, latest count.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Four hundred sixty-two thousand, and the
    news reports or media reports 11 million illegal in this
    Country. Somebody told me it is closer to 20 million; somebody
    else told me 30 million.
        Mr. Homan. I have heard the 11 million figure. That is why
    I think what ICE is doing is smart and effective enforcement.
    Knowing that we can are remove 400,000 aliens, that is what we
    are staffed and budgeted for, I think a smart way to do that is
    it going to be the first 400,000 we encounter, the first
    400,000 in the door?
        I think our policy focusing on the criminal aliens, those
    that threaten national security, I like to think we can decide
    who those 400,000 are going to be. The more criminals there
    are, the safer our communities are. We make a bigger impact, so
    our policy is clear. Let us decide who that 400,000 is going to
    be if that is all we can do. Let us make as many of them
    community safety factors as possible. That makes our
    communities safer.
        I mentioned earlier we removed 225,000 criminal aliens last
    year. That is a significant impact on community safety, not to
    mention the recidivism rate of around 50 percent. How many
    crimes did we prevent by removing that many criminal aliens?
        Mr. Bentivolio. Two hundred twenty-five thousand, is half
    of the 400,000.
        Mr. Homan. That is 55 percent. If you look at the 410,000,
    96 percent fell into our priorities, either 55 percent were
    criminal aliens and the rest, 96 percent, were either
    fugitives, those who were ordered removed and reentered which
    makes them reentry or the recent border entrants. The recent
    border entrants remain a priority for us because we need to
    secure the border.
        Mr. Bentivolio. A second illegal entry is a felony?
        Mr. Homan. If they have been ordered removed formally by an
    immigration judge, they reenter and we catch them, they can be
    prosecuted for 8 U.S.C. 1326 which is a felony, reentry after
    deportation.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Do you agree with other law enforcement
    professionals who are concerned that the rise in OTMs
    correlates to the rise in smuggling operations coming out of
    Mexico?
        Mr. Homan. I think the rise in OTM apprehensions, a vast
    majority are being smuggled by smuggling organizations
    operating out of Mexico.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I have one last question. When I was at
    Eloy, they gave me a daily report. It was a sheet of paper with
    all the countries in the world and there was a little space
    next to it. Every day, somebody would fill out that report and
    write the number being held at that facility in that little
    space on the sheet of paper. Is that like a daily report?
        Mr. Homan. I am unfamiliar with that. That might be
    something that facility does but we track every alien in
    custody, where they are from, who they are, how long they have
    been in custody through electronic databases.
        Mr. Bentivolio. I saw all the countries that were
    represented in that facility. Knowing from what I have seen
    that we don't capture 100 percent, we don't, the one thing that
    bothered me the most was there was the number one next to the
    country of Afghanistan. I don't know why but that really played
    on me.
        If we don't capture everybody, how many that we didn't
    capture from that particular country, because that is of
    concern to me and I am sure a lot of others, I guess that is
    why I stay awake at night sometimes when I think about this
    border and the problems we have there.
        Operational control is often described as a strategy used
    by DHS and CBP to describe their operations in securing U.S.
    borders. What do you view as the biggest threat to the security
    of our borders, Mr. Fisher, and we will go right down the line?
        Mr. Fisher. Certainly the biggest threat as I would
    describe it would be those individuals that seek and wake up
    each and every day thinking about nothing else but doing harm
    to this Country. That is our number one threat and that is what
    our strategy looks to target.
        Mr. Bentivolio. What does that mean?
        Mr. Fisher. Your question had to do with how we evaluate
    threat along the border and what that threat is?
        Mr. Bentivolio. What do you think the biggest risk is and
    how are we responding to that risk? To give you an example,
    there was one person there from Afghanistan. Right now we are
    fighting a war in Afghanistan. Why is somebody from Afghanistan
    sneaking into our Country or trying to? They are being held in
    Eloy Prison at the time.
        Then I hear we have 11 million illegals and we are not 100
    percent secure. You said the border is not secure. Somebody who
    wants to do us harm is going to exploit our weaknesses and the
    weak points in our border. My job, as the Congressman, is to
    protect this Country, number one priority in the Constitution.
        You are telling me our border is not secure and I would
    like to know what you think the biggest threat to the security
    of our borders is? Can you give me a percentage?
        Mr. Fisher. I do share the same responsibility as you as
    the Chief of United States Border Patrol. I along with the
    other agents took the same oath to support and defend the
    Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Within
    that framework, and the strategy which we have implemented over
    the last couple of years, specifically the threat that keeps me
    up as well is those individuals, potential terrorists, seeking
    entry to this Country and they do so between the ports of
    entry.
        We build a strategy and try to identify what the
    requirements are to minimize the likelihood that those
    individuals if they are inclined to get into this Country in
    that manner, we are able to detect them and apprehend them when
    they do so.
        If you are looking at threats or vulnerabilities as
    established geographically, I cannot give you certain segments
    of miles and I cannot give you percentages. I can give another
    example outside of the West Desert in Arizona, in a place like
    south Texas where the border is separated by the Rio Grande
    Valley and areas where we generally do not have a lot of
    detection capability, we do not have impediments like we have
    in other places like 12 to 15 foot fences.
        The areas right now where we see the vast majority of
    individuals seeking entry are within those areas in the Rio
    Grande Valley. From a regional standpoint, vulnerability is in
    the Rio Grande Valley.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. I believe it is terrorists and implements of
    terror. One of the things we have done is we have pushed our
    borders back from air traffic, the passengers. We know who is
    coming, we know well in advance of them boarding planes, and we
    know what is coming from a cargo and get that information in
    advance. At our land ports of entry and at our seaports, we
    have our RPMs or radiation detection devices. I believe that is
    where we have really done the most work as far as identifying
    that threat ahead of time.
        We denied boarding to 4,200 people in 2012. These were
    potentially high risk individuals that could have come to this
    Country to do harm.
        Mr. Bentivolio. We want 100 percent border security and you
    do not have it and one from Afghanistan comes in. That is all
    it takes is one.
        Mr. Homan?
        Mr. Homan. I have carried a badge for 29 years. I care
    about the security of this Country and I think it is my job to
    protect the security of this Country and the security of our
    communities. I think the biggest threat is those who want to
    come to this Country and do harm in two different fashions.
        The other side of the house, HSI Division, is a priority
    project they are working on, investigations of a national
    security nature. Also important is the safety of the
    communities for those who come here and want to commit crime
    who not only enter the Country illegally but then commit a
    crime against a citizen of this Country.
        I have been doing this for a long time. There was a time
    when I was a street agent and we would just go out and arrest
    aliens because they are here in violation of the law. I am
    enforcing immigration law. At the end of the day, what impact
    did I make? At the same time I am arresting this person who is
    here illegally but maybe hasn't committed another crime, there
    is a child predator walking out of State prison because we
    didn't have a presence in all the jails across the Country.
        This Administration, I truly believe this, has done a lot
    for community safety by deploying secure communities across the
    Country. We have a virtual presence in every jail. When an
    alien is arrested and finger printed, we are going to find out
    about that alien and we can take action and remove him from the
    Country.
        The strategy ICE has built on prioritizing what we do on
    national security threats, aliens that are a threat to public
    safety, makes sense to me. It is the right thing to do. If we
    are built to remove 400,000 people, let us make that 400,000
    count. I think what we are doing now makes sense. I have been
    doing this 29 years. I think we are in a better spot now than
    we have been in years.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Gambler?
        Ms. Gambler. The Border Patrol has identified threats to
    border security from terrorism, from drug smuggling and from
    illegal migration. The Border Patrol is working on developing
    some risk assessment tools to help assess what those risks are
    and help inform its identification of resources. That is in
    process right now.
        Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much.
        I would like to thank all our witnesses for taking time
    from their busy schedules to appear before us today. The
    committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]