    [Senate Hearing 113-254]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-254

                            BORDER SECURITY -- 2013

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 MARCH 14, 2013
              MEASURING THE PROGRESS AND ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES

                                 APRIL 10, 2013
           FRONTLINE PERSPECTIVE ON PROGRESS AND REMAINING CHALLENGES

                                  MAY 7, 2013
    EXAMINING PROVISIONS IN THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND
                     IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT (S. 744)

                                   ----------

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

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-254

                            BORDER SECURITY -- 2013

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 14, 2013
              MEASURING THE PROGRESS AND ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES

                                 APRIL 10, 2013
           FRONTLINE PERSPECTIVE ON PROGRESS AND REMAINING CHALLENGES

                                  MAY 7, 2013
    EXAMINING PROVISIONS IN THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND
                     IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT (S. 744)

                                   __________

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

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    80-221 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
    CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
    MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
    JON TESTER, Montana                  RAND PAUL, Kentucky
    MARK BEGICH, Alaska                  MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
    HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota

                       Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
                   John P. Kilvington, Deputy Staff Director
               Blas Nunez-Neto, Senior Professional Staff Member
                        Holly A. Idelson, Senior Counsel
          Stephen R. Vina, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
                   Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
             Christopher J. Barkley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
            Daniel P. Lips, Minority Director for Homeland Security
                         Trina D. Shiffman, Chief Clerk
                        Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Carper..........................................1, 131, 263
        Senator McCain.........................................15, 134, 284
        Senator Landrieu.............................................   135
        Senator Tester...............................................   151
        Senator Ayotte...............................................   154
        Senator Baldwin............................................157, 283
        Senator Coburn.............................................159, 266
        Senator Johnson..............................................   280
        Senator Heitkamp.............................................   287
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Carper.........................................33, 171, 315
        Senator Coburn.........................................36, 174, 318
        Senator Landrieu.............................................   319

                                   WITNESSES
                            Thursday, March 14, 2013

    Hon. Doris Meissner, Senior Fellow and Director, U.S. Immigration
      Policy Program, Migration Policy Institute.....................     4
    Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, Council on
      Foreign Relations..............................................     6
    David A. Shirk, Ph.D., Director, Trans-Border Institute,
      University of San Diego........................................     9

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Alden, Edward:
        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Meissner, Hon. Doris:
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Shirk, David A., Ph.D.:
        Testimony....................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    62

                                    APPENDIX

    American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), statement for the Record..    94
    Government Accountability Office, statement for the Record.......   102
    National Immigration Forum, statement for the Record.............   121
    Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
      Employees Union (NTEU), statement for the Record...............   124

                           Wednesday, April 10, 2013

    Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs and
      Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........   136
    Michael J. Fisher, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and
      Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........   139
    Randolph D. Alles, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and
      Marine, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of
      Homeland Security..............................................   140
    James A. Dinkins, Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security
      Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
      Department of Homeland Security................................   142

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Alles, Randolph D.:
        Testimony....................................................   140
        Prepared statement...........................................   176
    Dinkins, James A:
        Testimony....................................................   142
        Prepared statement...........................................   189
    Fisher, Michael J.:
        Testimony....................................................   139
        Prepared statement...........................................   176
    McAleenan, Kevin K.:
        Testimony....................................................   136
        Prepared statement...........................................   176

                                    APPENDIX

    Photo submitted by Mr. Fisher....................................   185
    Photo submitted by Mr. Fisher....................................   186
    Photo submitted by Mr. Fisher....................................   187
    Photo submitted by Mr. Fisher....................................   188
    Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
      Employees Union (NTEU), statement for the Record...............   198
    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
        Mr. McAleenan, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Alles......................   204
        Mr. Dinkins..................................................   243

                              Tuesday, May 7, 2013

    Hon. David F. Heyman, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
      Department of Homeland Security................................   268
    Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs and
      Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
      accompanied by Michael J. Fisher, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol,
      U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland
      Security.......................................................   270
    Daniel H. Ragsdale, Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
      Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security..............   272
    Anne L. Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Office
      of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.....   274

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Heyman, Hon. David F.:
        Testimony....................................................   268
        Prepared statement...........................................   322
    McAleenan, Kevin K.:
        Testimony....................................................   270
        Prepared statement...........................................   322
    Ragsdale, Daniel H:
        Testimony....................................................   272
        Prepared statement...........................................   322
    Richards, Anne L.:
        Testimony....................................................   274
        Prepared statement...........................................   328

                                    APPENDIX

    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from:
        Mr. Heyman and Mr. McAleenan.................................   343
        Ms. Richards.................................................   456

                                BORDER SECURITY:
                                     ______

              MEASURING THE PROGRESS AND ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2012

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
    Carper, presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper and McCain.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER

        Chairman Carper. Well, I am tempted to say the Committee
    will come to order, but the Committee is in order and so is the
    audience and our witnesses. We are glad you are here arrayed
    before us today and thank you for joining us. We are looking
    forward to your testimony and the hearing. I think we are going
    to have some votes today. We are working on some important
    legislation. So we will probably be interrupted a time or two,
    but we are going to get started and just roll with the punches.
    It is nice to see all of you.
        As Congress wrestles anew with immigration reform this
    year, the security of our borders will be closely examined.
    This conversation is likely to be quite different from the one
    we had 7 years ago when we last debated immigration reform.
    That is largely due to the substantial investments we have made
    to secure our borders over the past decade, particularly our
    Southern border with Mexico.
        Despite all of the money and attention we have poured into
    these efforts, we are still facing what I believe is a lag
    between perception and reality, much like what happened with
    the American auto industry. By the beginning of this current
    century, the quality of the vehicles that Detroit was making
    had begun to markedly improve, greatly narrowing and then
    eliminating the quality gap between our vehicles and those
    produced in Japan and Europe. However, it was only in the last
    few years that the public really recognized and accepted this
    fact, allowing the perception of the quality of American
    vehicles to catch up with the reality of the quality of those
    vehicles.
        Likewise, despite the tremendous improvements that have
    been made in border security over the past decade, the public's
    perception of these improvements has lagged at times behind
    reality. According to one of our witnesses today, Doris
    Meissner, we will spend $18 billion this year enforcing our
    immigration and customs laws. That is more than we will spend
    on all other Federal law enforcement, the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the
    U.S. Marshals, and the Secret Service combined. Just think
    about that. And since 2000, the Border Patrol alone has more
    than doubled in size, and its funding has almost quadrupled.
    This enormous investment reflects just how important effective
    border security is to our Nation.
        Last month, I was able to visit portions of the U.S.-Mexico
    border in Arizona with one of our colleagues, Senator John
    McCain. We were joined there by Congressman Mike McCaul of
    Texas, who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security.
    Later that same week, I toured other parts of that border in
    Arizona with their former Governor, now Secretary of Homeland
    Security, Janet Napolitano. Based on what I saw there, I
    believe that our efforts, and especially those of the dedicated
    men and women who work along the border, are paying off for the
    American taxpayers, and they need to.
        As it turns out, illegal immigration has dramatically
    decreased. Some experts estimate that more undocumented
    immigrants now leave the United States each year than enter
    unlawfully. Border Patrol apprehensions of undocumented
    immigrants, our best current measure, albeit an imperfect one,
    are at their lowest levels in decades.
        Now, some parts of these decreases may be due to the great
    recession we have endured, which reduced the number of jobs
    available for immigrants. But I believe that we could attribute
    a lot of this success to the security gains that we have made
    which deter people from crossing the border, whether there are
    jobs here for them or not.
        Having said all that, I returned from the border wondering
    if apprehensions is the metric we should be using to measure
    our program and our progress in border security and to guide
    our future investments there. I am not convinced that it is. I
    am convinced, however, of the wisdom of the old adage, you
    cannot manage what you cannot measure. And the truth is that we
    need to refine and strengthen the metrics that we use to
    determine how secure our borders and our ports of entry (POE)
    are to ensure that our security efforts are both effective and
    as cost efficient as possible.
        This is especially necessary when the budgets are tight--
    and they are, and we are literally debating that here today in
    the U.S. Senate. We simply cannot afford to keep ramping up
    resources for the border at the rate we have in the past. We
    must be strategic with our investments, and we can be.
        When I was in Arizona with my colleagues, I heard a number
    of frontline agents say that we need to focus our efforts on
    giving them technologies and tools that can serve as force
    multipliers. That includes a wide range of cameras, sensors,
    and radars that can be mounted on trucks or put on fixed towers
    to help the Border Patrol deploy its agents more effectively.
    More aerial surveillance assets, including blimps and aircraft
    such as the C206, are also needed, and that is not a real
    exotic airplane. It is a pretty basic airplane, but it is a
    good platform. But C206 are also needed to help the Border
    Patrol identify people crossing the border illegally and track
    them until agents can catch them.
        We also need to ensure that the investments we have already
    made are fully utilized and not wasted. I was surprised and,
    frankly, disappointed to learn that the Border Patrol has four
    drones deployed in Arizona but only has the resources to fly
    two of them, and even then, they cannot fly them every day of
    the week. We can do better than that.
        Another critical issue is the growing sophistication of
    drug smuggling networks along the border and the problems that
    they create for the Border Patrol and for our country. Agents
    in Arizona told me that the cartels actually put spotters with
    encrypted radios on top of mountains in our country to help
    smugglers on the ground avoid law enforcement. We need to do a
    better job of using our resources, including our drones and
    other aircraft, to find these spotters and to send agents to
    arrest them.
        Stopping these criminal networks must be a high priority.
    Finding the criminals that guide drugs and immigrants across
    the border can be like finding a needle in the haystack. If we
    can reform our broken immigration system to open up more
    effective legal channels for those looking to come to our
    country for economic or family reasons, I believe we can make
    that haystack smaller. This will allow law enforcement to focus
    on the truly bad guys.
        Finally, I would also like to note that a lot of the
    smuggling seen on the Southern borders is being pushed to the
    ports of entry. These border crossings have received far less
    attention and resources than the Border Patrol over the past
    decade, but they are just as important to our security and to
    our economy.
        Additionally, local mayors that I met with all told me that
    the lack of investments in border crossings is causing long
    wait times, which hurts their communities and our country as a
    whole. We must make sure that our ports of entry are secure,
    but we also need to ensure that they are effective conduits for
    the legal travel and trade that are essential to our national
    well-being and, frankly, that of the Mexicans.
        Ultimately, I hope that we can help the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) be so effective at securing our border
    that we can begin to shift some of our resources toward
    staffing and modernizing our ports of entry. We need to.
        In closing, I hope that today's hearing facilitates a frank
    conversation about how border security has improved since the
    last time immigration reform was debated and helps us to
    identify what more needs to be done. I support the efforts
    underway to reform our immigration laws. Looking ahead, I
    believe that this Committee can contribute significantly to the
    conversations that are taking place now by informing them and
    ultimately enabling the Congress and our President to hammer
    out a thoughtful and effective immigration policy for America
    in the 21st Century.
        And we are going to be joined by some of our colleagues
    here. Dr. Coburn is going to be offering a couple of amendments
    on the floor today, and I know he is tied up with that right
    now. I know he will be joining us, and some of my other
    colleagues will, too.
        I want to introduce our witnesses. As they say about the
    President, he does not really need an introduction, and Doris,
    I am not sure that you do, either, but I am going to give you a
    short one anyway. Doris Meissner, Senior Fellow and Director of
    the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy
    Institute (MPI). From 1993, Ms. Meissner served in the Clinton
    Administration as the Commissioner of the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS). Welcome.
        Our second witness is Mr. Edward Alden. He goes by ``Ted.''
    Mr. Alden is the Bernard Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council
    on Foreign Relations. Bernard Schwartz, that is a good name.
    Give him my best. He specializes in U.S. economic
    competitiveness. Mr. Alden has done extensive work on border
    security metrics and is the author of the book, The Closing of
    the American Border, which examines U.S. efforts to strengthen
    border security in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,
    terrorist attacks.
        Our final witness is Dr. David A. Shirk, Director of the
    Trans-Border Institute and Assistant Professor in the Political
    Science Department at the University of San Diego. Dr. Shirk
    conducts research on Mexican politics and U.S.-Mexican
    relations and security along the U.S.-Mexican border and has
    many publications focused on these issues.
        We are delighted that you all are here. This is going to be
    a great hearing. The vote is at 11:15. Let us try to stick
    close to seven minutes each. If you run a little bit over, that
    is OK. If you run way over it, that is not.
        Doris, you are our lead-off hitter. Take it away. Thank
    you. Welcome.

        TESTIMONY OF HON. DORIS MEISSNER,\1\ SENIOR FELLOW AND
      DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY PROGRAM, MIGRATION POLICY
                               INSTITUTE

        Ms. Meissner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for the opportunity to be here this morning.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Meissner appears in the Appendix
    on page 37.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Carper. Our pleasure.
        Ms. Meissner. My statement is based on my personal
    experience with border and immigration enforcement when I
    served as Commissioner of INS. It is also based on a recent MPI
    report that I and colleagues coauthored called ``Immigration
    Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable
    Machinery.'' The report describes for the first time the
    totality and evolution since the mid-1980s of the Nation's
    modern day immigration enforcement machinery. My written
    statement focuses on the border enforcement element of that,
    which I will summarize as follows.
        For more than 25 years, there has been strong and sustained
    bipartisan support for strengthened immigration enforcement. As
    a result, the level of immigration enforcement spending in the
    United States now stands at a record high. You just summarized
    the key points on that spending.
        It has now reached $17.9 billion, larger than the other law
    enforcement agencies combined that you recounted. That amount
    is 24 percent higher than the amount spent for those other law
    enforcement agencies, and, of course, the lion's share of that
    funding has been for border security.
        Since fiscal year 2005, the budget of Customs and Border
    Protection (CBP) rose from $6.3 billion to $11.7 billion. That
    is an increase of about 85 percent. The agency's staffing grew
    by 50 percent, from 41,000 to 61,000-plus. That includes a
    doubling in the size of the Border Patrol to 21,000-plus agents
    since just 2004.
        Border enforcement encompasses a broad sweep of
    responsibilities at and between air, land, and sea ports of
    entry. Enforcement along the Southwest land border with Mexico
    represents the most heavily funded and publicized element of
    border enforcement. Resource infusions there have led to
    notable results. Historic highs in staffing, technology, and
    infrastructure have combined with historic 40-year lows in
    apprehensions. Border Patrol apprehensions fell by 78 percent
    between fiscal year 2000 and 2012, from more than 1.6 million
    to just 365,000. The greatest drop, 53 percent, has occurred
    since just 2008. Beyond significantly fewer apprehensions and
    individuals arrested, net new migration from Mexico has fallen
    to zero.
        These are dramatic numbers. They represent a top-line story
    of changes that have been years in the making. To me, two
    aspects of the changes stand out as particularly significant.
        The first is a new strategic plan that the Border Patrol
    announced last spring that has received little notice. It calls
    for risk-based enforcement to supplant its earlier goal of
    building adequate staffing, technology, and infrastructure that
    began in 1994, when I was Commissioner. The plan says that the
    Border Patrol's resource base has now been built, allowing for
    targeted enforcement responses to be carried out through
    information, integration of effort, and rapid response. It
    depicts steady State funding and refining of programs alongside
    increased cooperation with other law enforcement entities,
    especially Mexico. This is entirely new and unprecedented.
        Second, these sustained resource infusions have allowed for
    significant changes in border enforcement practices. Instead of
    the storied revolving door along the border, the Border Patrol
    is employing enforcement tactics that impose consequences
    beyond simple voluntary return on those it arrests. According
    to the Border Patrol, the purpose of its new tactics is to
    break the smuggling cycles and the networks by separating
    migrants from smugglers and increasing deterrence of repeat
    entries. As a result, whereas 90 percent of border enforcement
    had been voluntary return, the reverse is now true and the
    large majority of those apprehended face a consequence, such as
    lateral repatriation, expedited removal, or Operation
    Streamline, for example. Remarkably, CBP refers more cases to
    the United States for prosecution in district courts than does
    the FBI.
        Now, this is not to say that border enforcement must not
    continue to be improved. Technology initiatives that have
    played a major role in transforming the border have also often
    been disappointing. The story of Secure Border Initiative
    (SBInet) is a case in point. Meeting the physical
    infrastructure needs at land ports of entry has not kept pace
    with advances in documentation and screening developments.
    Space limitations prevent important new technologies from being
    fully utilized. Thus, the potential for land port of entry
    inspections to be a weak link is a continuing enforcement
    challenge.
        There is much disagreement over how to measure what
    constitutes a secure border. Current measures rely primarily on
    inputs, such as resource increases, not on outcomes and
    impacts, such as the size of illegal flows, the share of the
    flow apprehended, or recidivism rates. CBP and DHS must do
    better in demonstrating border enforcement effectiveness.
        At the same time, the combination of increased border
    enforcement, shifting trends in Mexico, and job loss in the
    U.S. economy has led to new facts on the ground that have
    important policy and political implications for immigration
    debates. Today's border enforcement is a multifaceted,
    sophisticated enterprise. It has become institutionalized
    through its national security links and resource investments in
    vital capabilities that demonstrate the Federal Government's
    ability and will to vigorously enforce the Nation's immigration
    laws.
        While imperfect, border security has been significantly
    strengthened in all key dimensions. It would be strengthened
    even further by enactment of immigration laws that both address
    inherent weaknesses in enforcement beyond border security, such
    as employer enforcement, and that better rationalize
    immigration policy to align with the Nation's economic needs
    and future growth and well-being. The dramatic strides that
    have been made in border security constitute a sound platform
    from which to address broader immigration policy changes suited
    to the larger needs and challenges that immigration represents
    for the United States in the 21st century.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you. Great testimony. I wish all of
    my colleagues were here to hear it, but a lot of people are
    watching on television and a lot of staffers are here, so we
    thank you for that. Thank you for all your work over the years,
    as well.
        Ms. Meissner. Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Mr. Alden, we are happy you are here.
    Please proceed.

       TESTIMONY OF EDWARD ALDEN,\1\ BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ SENIOR
                  FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

        Mr. Alden. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I am delighted to
    have been invited to testify today and it is great to be here
    with Doris Meissner and David Shirk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Alden appears in the Appendix on
    page 50.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Carper. Do you all know each other?
        Mr. Alden. We do.
        Ms. Meissner. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Alden. Yes. It is a group of people who I think have
    worked on these issues for a while, Doris longer than I have,
    but----
        Chairman Carper. Really? [Laughter.]
        Have you all testified together before?
        Ms. Meissner. No.
        Mr. Alden. No.
        Chairman Carper. OK. This is your debut, so this is good.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Alden. The testimony that follows, as I was saying, is
    drawn from research I have conducted with two distinguished
    economists, Bryan Roberts, who is here with me today, and John
    Whitley, on measuring the effectiveness of border enforcement.
    Dr. Whitley is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defense
    Analyses and the former Director of Program Analysis and
    Evaluation (PA&E) at the Department of Homeland Security. Dr.
    Roberts is Senior Economist at Econometrica and was formerly
    Assistant Director of Borders and Immigration for Program
    Analysis and Evaluation at DHS. I appreciate your generous
    introduction.
        In a 2011 article in Foreign Affairs which was entitled,
    ``Are U.S. Borders Secure: Why We Do Not Know and How to Find
    Out,'' Dr. Roberts and I noted that by every conceivable input
    measure, as Doris' testimony went over, the number of Border
    Patrol agents, miles of fencing, and drone and surveillance
    coverage, the border is far more secure today than it has ever
    been. And yet according to a new poll by the Hill Newspaper,
    nearly two-thirds of Americans still believe the border is not
    secure.
        One reason for public skepticism is that the U.S.
    Government actually releases very little information about
    unauthorized border crossings. Currently, DHS makes public only
    a single relevant number, which is the total arrests or
    apprehensions made by Border Patrol in the vicinity of the
    border, numbers we are all familiar with. Multiple arrests of
    the same individual, it should be noted, are counted multiple
    times. And as Doris testified, apprehensions at the Southwest
    border have indeed dropped dramatically over the past decade,
    from more than 1.65 million in fiscal year 2000 to 357,000 at
    the Southern border in fiscal year 2012. This is lower than any
    year since the early 1970s, which is really before illegal
    immigration became a big policy issue. But other enforcement
    metrics related to illegal entry at the ports or between the
    ports or through visa overstays are not reported.
        DHS has recognized the inadequacy of the apprehensions
    number and has said it considers it, ``an interim performance
    measure.'' Yet despite promising to produce and report
    alternative measures, it has failed to do so, leaving this
    Congress to assess the current State of border security in the
    absence of data that would greatly assist that effort.
        The outcome that is of most concern to the U.S. public is
    the gross inflow of unauthorized migrants, or in other words,
    how many people escape detection, enter and remain in the
    United States successfully. While economic conditions in the
    United States and in the major sending countries of Mexico and
    Central America are obviously the biggest drivers of illegal
    migration, the two primary enforcement variables that affect
    gross inflow are the chances of being caught, that is, the
    apprehension rate, and the consequences of being caught.
        If we look between the land ports of entry, where much of
    the focus has been, there are three low-cost methods available
    that can be used to measure gross inflow and apprehension
    rates: Migrant surveys, recidivism analysis, and what is called
    known flow data.
        Migrant surveys, which have been carried out for several
    decades by academic groups, ask those who have attempted
    illegal entry how many times they were arrested on a particular
    trip and whether they were ultimately successful in entering
    the United States or gave up their attempt. The survey data,
    however, unfortunately, is not available in a particularly
    timely fashion. It tends to be backward looking.
        Recidivism analysis is possible because Border Patrol has
    captured fingerprints of those it apprehends for more than a
    decade now so that it can identify accurately those caught
    multiple times. Under certain assumptions, this analysis allows
    for accurate estimates of the apprehension rate. The difficulty
    is accounting for those who are arrested, sent back across the
    border to Mexico, and are deterred and do not make subsequent
    attempts. I explain that more in my written testimony.
        Finally, known flow data is based on sector-by-sector
    observations by the Border Patrol. Each sector has long kept
    such records, which include estimates of the number of people
    who successfully evaded the Border Patrol, so called ``got-
    aways,'' or are observed to retreat back into Mexico, so-called
    ``turnbacks.'' The difficulty here is that some percentage of
    illegal migrants will enter successfully without any
    observation by the Border Patrol.
        As our research shows in greater detail, each of these
    methods suggests considerable progress has been made in
    improving the effectiveness of border enforcement over the past
    decade. Migrant surveys suggest that the apprehension rate has
    trended upwards from a low of about 20 percent in 1990 to a
    current rate of somewhere between 40 and 50 percent.
        The recidivist method, depending on the assumptions one
    makes about deterrence, similarly suggests an apprehension rate
    in the 40 to 50 percent range. It could be higher than this. As
    Doris mentioned, Border Patrol's current strategy calls for
    consequence delivery to replace the historic practice of
    voluntary return of those arrested back to Mexico. We are
    talking about Mexicans here, who are the bulk of those trying
    to enter. These consequence programs are intended to discourage
    multiple reentry attempts. That is their whole purpose. But DHS
    has yet to release any data to evaluate their effectiveness.
        Finally, the known flow methodology, which was the subject
    of an extremely important Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) report in December, suggests that as many as 80 percent
    of those crossing illegally are apprehended. Evidence on
    illegal entry through the ports is scarce. In theory, it should
    be possible to measure and report apprehension rates and gross
    inflow through the ports. DHS implements a program of
    randomized secondary inspection, where certain vehicles are
    pulled aside on a random basis, that could be used to generate
    data on the probability that vehicle passengers attempting
    unauthorized entry succeed in getting through primary
    inspection. It is not known if DHS has made such estimates.
    They certainly have not released them publicly.
        Another relevant measure, though it does not directly
    related to the Southwest border, is the issue of visa
    overstays. A commonly accepted estimate is that more than 40
    percent of unauthorized migrants arrived on a lawful visa and
    then overstayed. DHS currently has the capability to provide a
    reasonably accurate estimate of the number of visa overstays
    from each country, but again has not released this information
    to Congress.
        The key outcome performance measures for any law
    enforcement organization are the rate at which the laws under
    their jurisdiction are broken. For U.S. immigration law, this
    means the numbers and rate at which individuals enter illegally
    and/or reside in this country unlawfully. Such data are crucial
    for designing more successful policies in the future. The U.S.
    Government is currently incapable of giving data-informed
    answers to some of the most basic policy questions in
    immigration management, such as would new legal programs for
    lower-skilled migrants reduce the incentive to migrate
    illegally to the United States? Would increased workplace
    enforcement do more to deter illegal immigration than increased
    border enforcement? Where would expenditures be more effective?
    Where are the vulnerabilities for increased illegal migration
    the greatest? At the ports of entry? Between ports? Visa
    overstays? We do not have good evidence.
        In an effort to produce more policy-relevant data and
    improve ongoing oversight, Congress should require at least the
    following as part of any forthcoming immigration legislation.
    First, that the Administration develop a full set of outcome
    performance measures for enforcement of immigration laws. There
    is a table in our written testimony that suggests what those
    should be. Congress should make the development and reporting
    of such measures mandatory for the Administration and tie this
    to future appropriations.
        Second, performance data should be used in the ongoing
    management of illegal immigration. DHS should establish an
    early warning system that monitors all unauthorized inflows,
    along with economic, demographic, law enforcement, and other
    trends that may affect these outcomes. This is a critical part
    of a risk management strategy as the Border Patrol has adopted.
        And then, finally, oversight must be strengthened. Relevant
    Committees in Congress should hold regular hearings to review
    the early warning system data and forecasts, examine trends and
    outcome performance measures, and assess DHS proposals for
    adjustments to its strategies as conditions on the ground
    change.
        Thank you. I appreciate your indulgence in going over time
    and I would be happy to respond to questions.
        Chairman Carper. That was well worth the time it took.
    Thank you.
        Dr. Shirk, please proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF DAVID A. SHIRK, PH.D.,\1\ DIRECTOR, TRANS-BORDER
                   INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO

        Mr. Shirk. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to you
    and the Committee for allowing me to speak to you today. I have
    been studying security issues on both sides of the border for
    the last 10 years at the Trans-Border Institute based at the
    University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies,
    and also, I have been a long-time resident of the border region
    and I am personally affected on a daily basis by the choices
    made here in Washington about our border with Mexico, so I am
    very pleased to speak in that regard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Shirk appears in the Appendix on
    page 62.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I have been studying security issues on both sides of the
    border for the last 10 years at the Trans-Border Institute
    based at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc School of
    Peace Studies, and also, I have been a long-time resident of
    the border region and I am personally affected on a daily basis
    by the choices made here in Washington about our border with
    Mexico, so I am very pleased to speak in that regard.
        Living in San Diego for most of the last two decades, I
    have witnessed the dramatic transformation of the border region
    that my two colleagues have described as a result of more
    concentrated enforcement measures to prevent unauthorized
    migration, smuggling, and terrorism. The dramatic increases in
    the number of Border Patrol agents on the ground has already
    been mentioned. But I would simply underscore that this
    arguably makes the U.S.-Mexico border the heaviest guarded
    border between two peaceful, interdependent trading countries
    in the world. The border itself has been physically
    transformed, especially in major populated areas where multi-
    billion-dollar high-tech equipment and fencing are used to
    detect and deter both immigrants and criminals.
        By some measure, as has been mentioned, these efforts have
    resulted in real security improvements along the border,
    particularly when looking at inputs. But also, I want to speak
    to some of the consequences for us living in the border region.
        Even amid the economically and demographically driven
    decline of Mexican outbound migration in recent years, we have
    seen more effective deterrence, detection, detention, and
    deportation of unauthorized immigrants than at any other point
    in our history. We have produced safer conditions in terms of
    roads, lighting, communications systems, and emergency back-up
    for Border Patrol and Customs agents working in these zones, as
    well as lower crime rates for border communities, businesses,
    and residents like me.
        In many places, this has improved the quality of life for
    people living along the border insofar as it has resulted in
    less fear and property damage for businesses, ranchers, and
    residents, and greater protection for our parks and
    recreational areas located near the border.
        However, this border security buildup has come at a
    significant cost, as has been noted. The operational costs of
    border enforcement have increased greatly, from billions to
    tens of billions of dollars annually. More sophisticated border
    controls have resulted actually in more sophisticated criminal
    organizations, greater threats for immigrants, residents, and
    Government agents working in border zones. We have also
    produced more dangerous conditions for unauthorized immigrants
    crossing the border, contributing to more than 6,000 migrant
    deaths since 1995.
        In weighing the cost of border security, we should also
    consider the lengthy delays resulting from slow procedures and
    inadequate infrastructure, which results in lost economic
    opportunities for both countries. Last year, commercial,
    vehicular, and pedestrian crossers at the border accounted for
    over a half-a-trillion dollars in business with Mexico, our
    second-largest trading partner. Border wait times, solely in
    the San Diego-Tijuana region, which is in urgent need of
    further funding to complete infrastructure upgrades, cost both
    countries around $6 billion each year, according to the San
    Diego Association of Governments.
        Impacts on Mexican border cities, where tens of thousands
    of immigrants are returned without coordination with Mexican
    authorities, include greater crime and violence as those
    individuals try to struggle to adapt to their deportation
    conditions.
        Astonishingly, as has been noted, despite all the effort
    and cost, we have few reliable indicators to determine whether
    these border security measures are effective in deterring
    undocumented immigration. Almost all of the most commonly used
    metrics of border security effectiveness are proxy indicators.
    Analysts measure the number of unauthorized immigrants living
    in the United States based on surveys and approximations.
    Analysts measure the flow of illegal immigrants into the
    country by the number of arrests made by Border Patrol agents.
    Ultimately, we do not have accurate, up-to-date estimates of
    the size and composition of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant
    population or the number of unauthorized immigrants coming into
    the United States.
        These estimates need to be more regularly updated and
    publicly disseminated to give a clear picture of the overall
    effectiveness of immigration control measures, including those
    that go beyond the border. Greater research and analysis is
    also needed to approximate the proportion of visa overstays
    compared to unauthorized border crossers that comprise our
    undocumented population, as well as the countries of origin, so
    we can get a sense of how important Mexican and Central
    American migration is as a phenomenon overall.
        The U.S. Government, I think, should also work more closely
    with the Government of Mexico and Mexican research agencies to
    examine statistics on Mexican outbound migration and returnees,
    repatriacion, as they say in Mexico, as well as surveys of
    migrants, as has been mentioned, that provide a better
    understanding of their motivations and experiences.
        Authorities do have some measures that can be used, as
    well, to evaluate the performance of U.S. border control
    agencies in terms of process. For example, border officials
    collect data on the likelihood of detention after detection,
    again, this idea of got-aways or turnbacks. But the methodology
    for gathering these data varies from sector to sector, so
    developing a standardized methodology for the collection of
    these and similar performance metrics would help officials to
    identify areas in need of improvement along different sectors
    of the border and redeploy resources accordingly to those
    zones.
        On a final note, my colleague at the Wilson Center, Eric
    Olson, and I have argued for better security through wider
    gates. This may seem counterintuitive, but if Congress can
    achieve a long overdue reform of our immigration system, this
    would reduce the incentives to violate our immigration laws and
    thereby increase our ability to control the border, because it
    would reduce the size of the haystack that our Border Patrol
    agents have to sort through. In that sense, conditioning
    immigration reform on tougher border security may be the wrong
    sequence of policies.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Carper. Well, thank you. That was really excellent
    testimony. We appreciate each of your statements.
        We have been joined by Senator McCain, and I mentioned,
    Senator McCain, before you got here how valuable our visit to
    your border, your State's border with Mexico, was for me.
        I am reminded as I prepared for this hearing and listened
    to testimony today of a couple of thoughts. One, is the border
    more secure? Can we do better? Everything I do, I know I could
    do better. It is one of my core values. I think that is true
    for all of us. Everything we all do, every Government program
    we have, I suspect we can do better. And while real progress
    has been made along our border with Mexico, can we do better?
    Sure, we can do better. I like to say, the road to improvement
    is always under construction, and it is in this case, as well.
        One of my take-aways from the time I spent with Senator
    McCain and Congressman McCaul and later that week with
    Secretary Napolitano was that you look at the areas between the
    ports of entry, where you have deployed large numbers of ground
    forces, Border Patrol, but also a lot of emphasis there on a
    fair amount of technology, fencing and other things, we are
    doing a better job. We are clearly doing a better job. If you
    look at the ports of entry, especially the ports of entry where
    we have some new technology, and we visited at least one of
    those, very impressive operations, but there are also huge
    back-ups, impeding trade going North and going South.
        One of the take-aways for me from that visit was if some of
    the technology that we are using is being used effectively to
    help direct our troops on the ground, our Border Patrol on the
    ground to the places they need to go and to better deploy those
    assets and deploy them in a more timely way, but I was down
    there looking for force multipliers. And one of the great
    examples is the drones. We have four drones on the border. Two
    operate at any time. They can operate for about 16 hours. They
    operate 5 days a week. What happens the other 2 days? What
    happens with the other two drones? What happens when the wind
    is blowing more than 15 knots? What happens when maintenance
    brings down the drones and they cannot fly? We have to figure
    out how to resource all four drones. If we are going to have
    four drones there, we need to be able to resource them.
        We have pretty good technology with, some people call them
    aerostats, but they are really blimps, the kind of sensors that
    we can mount on these blimps. Put them up in the air, they can
    be there whether the wind is 15 knots or 35 knots. They can
    survey what is going on. They can help us better direct our
    resources.
        Ideally, what I would like to do--and the C206, an aircraft
    that, frankly, I had not heard of. It is an older plane, small
    plane, but it is one that is a great platform and a very cost
    effective platform compared to the drones. You can fly for
    extended periods of time. It would be a great way to help
    better deploy our assets on the ground. It is a force
    multiplier.
        But those are the kinds of investments I think we need to
    be making, and if we make those investments, we will make the--
    how many thousand troops or Border Patrol do we have on the
    ground? It is not 18,000. What is it?
        Ms. Meissner. Twenty-one-thousand.
        Chairman Carper. Twenty-one-thousand, to help make them
    more effective.
        The other thing we have to do, we have these folks who are
    sitting up--the bad guys sitting up on the mountains up in our
    country really spying and being able to talk to other bad guys
    who are trying to bring either drugs or people into the country
    illegally. We ought to take them out. We ought to be smart
    enough to find out where they are and to be able to go take
    them out. If we could do that, that would make our efforts, I
    think, a whole lot more successful. It is probably a lot more
    difficult than it sounds, but that is part of what we need to
    do.
        I am going to ask a question or two and then turn it over
    to Senator McCain for--he has a number of questions--for at
    least 10 minutes, and then we will bounce back and forth. But,
    Mr. Alden, you spent a whole lot of time on the metrics and how
    do we measure, actually measure success. It is not easy. It is
    not an easy thing to measure.
        But I want to ask the three of you to just have a
    conversation with us about what might be a consensus about a
    metric or a series of metrics that are more reasonable, more
    effective, more appropriate. And, Doris, Dr. Shirk, I do not
    care who goes first, but react to what Ted Alden has said to
    us. What do you agree with? What do you maybe not agree with,
    and what----
        Ms. Meissner. I would endorse every one of Ted's
    statements. You asked us at the outset, if we know each other,
    or if we have worked together. Certainly Ted and I have, along
    with others that are in the university community as well as
    analysts that Ted mentioned.
        This issue of metrics is absolutely paramount at this point
    and DHS has been far too cautious. CBP has been very risk
    averse where measures that already are available are concerned.
    I understand the caution. We all recognize what the issues are
    surrounding them. But one of the things with measures and one
    of the things with data is that it has to be used. It has to be
    tested. It has to be validated, both inside closed circles
    within Government agencies but also by the external community.
    And it is past time where that should be done more fully.
        I think we would all agree that if there was one measure
    that we could have that would make all the difference, it would
    be the measure of the flow. It is what we in the trade call the
    magical denominator. We have the numerator. That is
    apprehensions. We need to know what those apprehensions
    represent as a percentage of the overall flow.
        We have that flow number in glances. The Congressional
    Research Service (CRS) has been able with select pieces of
    requests of data to get a sense of it. We know that the Border
    Patrol sector-by-sector has a reasonably good picture of it,
    lots of it because of the technology that you described and
    cited.
        The standardization of definitions on what is to be
    counted, et cetera, is not where it needs to be. That all needs
    to be done. But some of this can happen in an iterative way if
    things begin to be shared and this becomes a really sincere
    analytic effort to try to find out what the answers are.
        One of the most important things we learned from one piece
    of research that CRS did is that the apprehension numbers,
    365,000 a year ago, actually means just 269,000, or maybe it
    was 267,000, individuals. That is another very interesting
    subset of this. As compared to the arrest actions, how many
    real individuals does that represent? Just in those two things,
    the flow and how many individuals are represented by the
    apprehension numbers, we would know a great deal more about
    effectiveness than we do. Those, I would argue, are within
    reach.
        Chairman Carper. Oh, good. Thanks. Dr. Shirk.
        Mr. Shirk. I would agree, as well. I would just note that
    both Doris and I are on the advisory committee for the paper
    that Ted is working on for the Council on Foreign Relations
    precisely on this topic, and I think it is excellent work.
        I would say that one of the things that he noted, the fact
    that we can isolate with the apprehension data whether or not
    individuals are recidivists using the thumbprint identifier
    code that is available on that--that could be made available on
    that database is an example of how data should be made
    available to researchers so that we can do more sophisticated
    analysis and give you a better understanding of what the actual
    trends are using those data.
        I would also simply point out that if you--one metric,
    thinking about numerators and denominators, is in 1990, when we
    had about--late 1990s, when we had about 9,000 agents, they
    were making about 150-plus arrests per agent, on average, using
    the apprehension data that we have. If you flash forward to
    today, when we have 20,000-plus agents on the border, they are
    arresting about 15 undocumented immigrants per agent.
        So that is actually, ironically, a good thing. We want a
    low number of arrests to the number of agents that we have
    deployed. Ideally, we would like to have fewer Border Patrol
    agents and fewer arrests, meaning that flows would be low and
    there is a lot of deterrence. So if we can reduce manpower at
    the border while increasing some of those force multipliers
    that you mentioned, that would be the ideal.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thanks very much.
        I am reminded, before I turn it over to you, Senator McCain
    and I spent a whole lot of time in the Navy. I admire his
    service--I know we all do--and salute him for it. The time that
    he spent in--and he was in much more difficult circumstances
    than I was. I flew in a Navy airplane called a P3. We used to
    hunt Russian submarines all over the world. We also flew a lot
    of missions off the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia, low levels
    trying to detect a little infiltrator probably trying to get
    into South Vietnam to resupply the Viet Kong. And in the South
    China Sea, there was a lot of surface traffic, and a lot of
    surface traffic going into Hong Gai Harbor. We flew a lot of
    missions down along the Straits of Majorca, between the Indian
    Ocean and the Pacific Ocean.
        And this was 40 years ago and we had the technology then to
    literally track scores of little boats electronically, to
    assign targets to them electronically, and to be able to track
    them, scores of them at the same time. This was 40 years ago.
    And if we could do that 40 years ago, I think we ought to have
    the technology today, whether it is on a drone or a C206 or an
    aerostat, to be able to do something with not just little boats
    trying to infiltrate into South Vietnam, but people and groups
    of people. We ought to have the technology to be able to do
    that.
        John, thank you very much.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN

        Senator McCain. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want
    to thank you for taking the time from a very busy schedule to
    come down to the border, spend time with our agents, with our
    ranchers, with all of those who really live this issue on a
    day-to-day basis. I wish more of our colleagues could have the
    opportunity or seize the opportunity as you did, and I thank
    you for doing that. It is a long way from Delaware and I thank
    you for being there. It is obvious that you learned a lot, as I
    did, and I appreciate it very much.
        I thank the witnesses. Doris, it is nice to see you again,
    and thank you for your outstanding work, and thank you all for
    your continued contributions to this discussion we are having
    on comprehensive immigration reform.
        Doctor, I agree with you that we have to have comprehensive
    reform. You ended your remarks that the best way to relieve
    this pressure is probably through comprehensive reform. I know
    that all of our witnesses would agree with that. And part of it
    is--of any comprehensive immigration reform is verifiable
    identification of people who apply for jobs. When the magnet is
    not there anymore, then fewer people are going to come to this
    country illegally.
        But I also, Doris, want to emphasize that it is beyond my
    understanding why the Department of Homeland Security would not
    publicly disclose the information that is necessary to all
    Americans as to this issue of flow and how many we apprehend
    and how many are turned back and you have motivated me, if we
    pass comprehensive immigration reform, that will be one of the
    provisions of the legislation, that this information needs to
    be made public to all Americans.
        I guess for all three of our witnesses, that is probably
    the best way to--or do you know a better way of ascertaining
    the effectiveness rate than apprehensions and turnbacks? Is
    there a better way to achieve these metrics than that, or is
    that probably the best way to do that? Doris.
        Ms. Meissner. As far as I know, those are the key ideas,
    and David's addition of recidivism and repeated entries off of
    the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) data is
    what we have. And that is what we need. I mean, it is not that
    what we have is too primitive. We have the wherewithal to get
    those numbers. Now, when we have them, they may raise other
    questions that one needs to dig further on. But having them
    would put us way far forward from where we are today in
    understanding.
        Mr. Alden. I would say, as I spelled out in the testimony,
    we really believe that the three methods you need, it is a
    place to start. There could be improvements to all of them. One
    is these Border Patrol observations, and you have had a very
    good picture of that in this GAO report in December, which is
    the first time all of that data has been made available widely
    to Congress and the public. A very important contribution.
        We need a similar kind of transparency with respect to the
    recidivist data, and DHS has this information on multiple
    arrests. They can use it, as I said, with certain assumptions
    to help make calculations of flow and apprehension rates.
        And then, finally, we need to make more serious use of
    these migrant surveys. Now, there are problems there in terms
    of who carries it out. It is done by academic groups. There
    would be concern if the Government got directly involved in
    that area. But the surveys are very valuable in helping us
    understand what the migrants themselves are doing, what
    motivates them, what deters them. It would be very interesting
    if we finally get serious workplace enforcement to have
    questions in surveys, were you deterred from coming to the
    United States by the fact that you did not think you could get
    a legitimate job? That is an important piece of information
    that we need to know as part of ongoing management.
        So I think we really are moving from this position of a big
    resource buildup to ongoing law enforcement and management of
    the problem, and I am hoping that this legislation will help
    facilitate that turn because I think that is where we are. Both
    for good objective reasons, because that is where we need to
    be, but, I think, also for budgetary reasons. There are just
    limits to how much we can continue to spend on enforcement.
        Senator McCain. Dr. Shirk.
        Mr. Shirk. I would only add, first of all, if the
    Government does not want to release the IDENT data, at a
    minimum, doing some analysis and presenting that through GAO or
    some other source would be an alternative. But it seems to me
    that there is no apparent reason for why this and similar data
    are not released.
        Another example that I would use on another security area
    would be seizure data. We do not have publicly available
    information about, say, drug seizures or drugs and cash on a
    port of entry level and in between port of entry level across
    the entire border. But that would be a useful metric, as well,
    as we think about border security's effectiveness on other
    measures, such as drug trafficking.
        On the scope of the problem, we have been using this number
    of 11 million undocumented immigrants, but that is an old
    number and it is a number that has not been backed up by new
    survey data. And so I would only underscore that the survey
    data is very important for getting a better understanding of
    the size and composition of what some researchers call lakes
    and streams, right, the population and the people moving into
    and out of that population. And, unfortunately, that is the
    kind of work that needs to be done by academics and think
    tanks, and funding is critical for that kind of research. It is
    often--academics seem like we are not doing a whole lot in the
    ivory tower, but ultimately, when funding is available to do
    this kind of research, policymakers get the kind of information
    that they need to make decisions.
        Senator McCain. In 1986, I was around here and we passed
    legislation that gave, ``amnesty'' to three million Americans.
    There is a bitter taste in a lot of people's mouths because
    there was a commitment at that time, an assurance that we would
    never have to address this issue again. So this obviously
    emphasizes the importance this time around of border security.
        And I agree with the witnesses. I am not sure we need
    additional people. But I also believe that we have learned a
    lot of lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan on detection, on
    surveillance capabilities, that have been a quantum leap. In
    2007, we did not use drones. We had dirigibles, you know,
    blimps. And so I agree with you. We need to use that additional
    technology to increase it.
        But I also think that we need to have a measurement,
    probably through effectiveness rate, so that we can assure the
    American people that we have about 90 percent effective control
    of the border and take steps that are necessary to achieve
    that. Now, because of the advances we have made, when you look
    at the nine sectors, except for the smallest sectors where less
    than 30,000 apprehensions are not that important, we are only
    looking at three sectors that are not at 90 percent
    effectiveness. So I do not think it is that hard to achieve
    that 90 percent.
        But at the same time, I think I have an obligation, not
    just to the people of Arizona, but to the people of this
    country, to assure them that not only will we enact
    comprehensive immigration reform, but we are not going to come
    back and face this same third wave again some years from now. I
    would appreciate your comments on that, maybe beginning with
    you, Doris.
        Ms. Meissner. Well, I certainly do not think that one wants
    to establish an effectiveness rate in statute. But it is
    absolutely important at this point to do what Ted suggests in
    his testimony: Establish in the statute expectations from DHS
    of the kind of data, and the managing of that data against
    circumstances on the ground that we want to see where border
    control is concerned.
        I also think that in terms of the 1986 experience and its
    lessons that although this debate is similar in that it is
    returning to the issues of border enforcement, employer
    enforcement, et cetera, it is also very different, not only
    because of what we have learned, but the way things have
    changed. And I would point to a couple of changes.
        The most important are changes that are taking place in
    Mexico. I mean, Mexico, of course, has been the source of the
    largest share of illegal immigration now for 40-plus years and
    there is actually a historic set of changes taking place in
    Mexico that is part of the new picture where illegal
    immigration to the United States is concerned. That has to do
    with dramatic reductions in the birth rate and fertility rate
    in Mexico, the age curve in the population, so that less people
    are actually working age, the growth of a middle class, and
    solid economic growth in Mexico because they got their
    fundamentals right in the 1990s in terms of the economy.
        So even though one does not want to say that there is not
    going to be illegal immigration from Mexico--there will be--it
    is a very different picture in terms of dynamics.
        Senator McCain. Well, it is very different in other ways,
    too. One is an increased flow from other parts of the
    hemisphere, not just from Mexico, and the dramatically
    increased sophistication of the drug dealers as they bring
    drugs across our border, so----
        Ms. Meissner. Well, and that is right----
        Senator McCain [continuing]. So I respectfully disagree
    with you that the problem is lessened. In fact, as far as drugs
    are concerned, it is greater. There are people sitting on
    mountaintops in Arizona today guiding drug cartel people
    bringing drugs across our border. There is a dramatic increase
    in other than Mexicans (OTMs) that are trying to come across
    our border, as well. So I respectfully disagree with your rosy
    assessment, and I believe it needs to be----
        Ms. Meissner. No, I----
        Senator McCain. Let me finish. And I believe that it needs
    to be written into law so that the American people can know
    whether there is an effective control of our border. I owe them
    that obligation, particularly the citizens of my State.
        And I am out of time, so could I go to you, Ted.
        Mr. Alden. I just wanted to caution against--and I can
    understand why for public assurance this is very important, but
    I want to caution against looking for a single number. I mean,
    Chief Michael Fisher of the Border Patrol put out this----
        Senator McCain. We have to have some measurement.
        Mr. Alden. But we can have multiple measures.
        Senator McCain. OK.
        Mr. Alden. We do not simply need one measure. I mean, Chief
    Fisher put out this 90 percent effectiveness ratio and that
    comes from this known flow methodology. The problem with that,
    as I said, is that known flow almost certainly underestimates
    the number of people coming in illegally because we simply do
    not know what it was that the Border Patrol did not observe.
        The second danger with focusing solely on that number is
    that in many ways, it is the most subjective of these different
    measures that I talked about because it depends on Border
    Patrol observations. And you want to be able to assure the
    public that these numbers are not being gamed by Border Patrol
    agents who are looking to hit a certain target in order to
    satisfy the Congress or satisfy the public.
        That is why we believe very strongly that multiple
    measures, including ones like the recidivist data that, for all
    of the challenges, are more objective--so we know when we have
    apprehended people multiple times--that you have to use these
    data together to try to come up with a complete picture.
        I would caution against establishing a target effectiveness
    ratio and then saying that is what we need to hit, because I
    think there is a real danger that effective long-run
    performance management will be jeopardized by focusing on a
    particular----
        Senator McCain. How do I assure the people of my State that
    the border is under effective control?
        Mr. Alden. You have to get them to understand that there
    are different ways to look at this. The data is all pointing in
    the same direction. The truth probably lies somewhere between
    these poles and we need to continue making it better. We are
    going to manage this on an ongoing basis. The Congress is going
    to do oversight. We are going to question the Administration
    and the Border Patrol aggressively. We are going to have a
    laser-like focus on continued improvement in the future, not on
    one particular magic number that we are going to try to hit.
        I think there is a real danger of that in terms of what you
    are trying to do in reassuring the public that this is not
    going to be 1986 all over again. I mean, people are smart about
    this, right? They understand----
        Senator McCain. No, they are not.
        Mr. Alden. Well, they should be, right? This is----
        Senator McCain. Well, maybe they should be.
        Mr. Alden. This is called----
        Senator McCain. Maybe they should be, but they are not.
        Mr. Alden. This is hard stuff, right.
        Senator McCain. Maybe they should be, but I can tell you,
    they are not.
        Mr. Alden. OK. Well, as my----
        Senator McCain. I have town hall meetings all over my
    State.
        Mr. Alden. Fair enough.
        Senator McCain. You may have seen some of them on
    television.
        Mr. Alden. I have. I understand the challenges.
        Senator McCain. We have spirited debate and discussion----
        Mr. Alden. I understand the challenges.
        Senator McCain [continuing]. And they want a secure border,
    and they have that right.
        Mr. Alden. Absolutely.
        Senator McCain. Dr. Shirk.
        Mr. Shirk. Senator, I have studied drug trafficking and
    drug-related violence in Mexico very carefully over the last
    several years and I agree with you that they are more dangerous
    and more deadly than at times in the past.
        I do think that that is all the more reason that we need to
    redirect flows of migrants to legal entry points so that we can
    reduce the size of the haystack and focus on the real threats
    that we face at the border, as you have tried to----
        Senator McCain. I have promised to. That is the intent of
    this legislation, and I appreciate that.
        Mr. Shirk. As you have tried to do, sir.
        I also would simply underscore that I also think we can
    help Mexico's economy continue to grow and benefit in the
    process. Mexico is our No. 2 most important destination for
    U.S. exports and I would like us to keep sending more iPods and
    more U.S. goods to Mexico as their economy improves and their
    purchasing power improves. Anything we can do to facilitate
    that, I think, would be a positive thing.
        But you are also right that we need to do more to work with
    Central America, which has been losing large numbers of its
    migrants, the OTMs, as you say, the other than Mexicans, who
    are coming North to the United States. And if we can work with
    them as we have worked with Mexico in the last few years, I
    think that would be positive. Thank you.
        Senator McCain. I thank you. I have to go, Mr. Chairman. I
    thank the witnesses. And again, Mr. Alden and Doris, I need to
    have something to assure people that they are not going to live
    in fear, as some of them are right now in the Southern part of
    my State, or believe they are. And so this is a very tough part
    of this issue. And I do not think we could ever return to 1986
    because of the dramatic improvement we have made in border
    security. But I can see a relaxation that might cause--and
    there is always--one of the problems with these Central
    American countries is their economies are terrible, as opposed
    to the Mexican economy. So we need to work with the Mexicans on
    improving their Southern border.
        But I need to assure the people of my State and this
    country that we are not going to revisit this issue again 10,
    15, or 20 years from now. So there has to be some assurance to
    them, no matter what parameters we use to secure our border.
        You have added a lot to this debate and you have been
    helpful to me as we are in these discussions and hopefully
    coming up with a product that Mr. Bismarck would not call laws
    and sausages. I thank the witnesses.
        Ms. Meissner. Senator, if I might just say very quickly, I
    am sure, on behalf of all of us, we would be very pleased to
    work with you on those issues.
        Senator McCain. Thank you very much. We have in the past,
    in the Coolidge Administration. Thank you. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Carper. Thank you.
        Mr. Alden, in your testimony, you note that the U.S.
    Government is incapable of giving data-informed answers to key
    questions that I think a number of us believe will be crucial
    when we try to figure out what more needs to be done.
        I want to go down the panel and ask each of you to help me
    address three questions that I am going to ask. They are short
    questions, and I am going to ask the question and then ask--we
    will start with you, Dr. Shirk--but ask you and then Mr. Alden
    and Doris to respond.
        But the first question is, would increased workplace
    enforcement do more to deter future illegal immigration than
    increased border enforcement?
        Mr. Shirk. I think, ultimately, yes. The data, however, I
    think as others will point out, does not make it possible for
    us to accurately determine exactly how significant the
    workplace enforcement effects are, but my personal leaning is
    that I think that that would be more of an effective measure,
    because the problem, I think, is that we always try to use the
    border as a solution to problems that do not originate at the
    border, whether that is with drugs or with undocumented
    immigration. We do not deal with the point of contact or the
    point of origin of the problem, the point of sale or the point
    of consumption.
        And in my mind, if we are not doing something to address
    the point of departure for undocumented immigrants, making
    their economic opportunities better at home, and we are not
    dealing with employers and making it easier for employers to
    ensure that the people that they hire have legal authorization
    to work in the United States, then anything we do in between is
    not going to be particularly effective.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you. Mr. Alden.
        Mr. Alden. I would just like to note quickly that Dr.
    Whitley has joined us, as well. I am delighted to have him here
    with us.
        Chairman Carper. Do you think he would raise his hand and
    smile at us? How are you?
        Mr. Alden. Thank you. I think, logically, one would have to
    say yes, because border enforcement, beginning with the work
    that Doris did back when she was INS Commissioner, has
    developed substantially over the last two decades, as we have
    talked about today. Workplace enforcement is still really in
    its infant stages. I mean, e-Verify covers, what, 7 percent of
    employers now. There are identification problems. One has to
    believe that the potential gains are much bigger in that space
    than they would be for increased border enforcement. There has
    been some academic work that suggests that in a tentative way.
    It is hard to get a firm handle on.
        But one of the things that we would want to do if, as a
    result of this legislation, workplace enforcement becomes more
    and more stringent, is to begin to monitor that. I mean, in
    migrant surveys, for instance, you would want to ask people,
    were you deterred from coming to the United States by the fact
    that it was going to be difficult for you to find legitimate
    work? Currently, if you ask people that, the answer is, no,
    that is not a deterrent factor at all. And so that would be an
    important piece of data to try to get a sense of what kind of
    impact these measures have.
        I mean, there is no perfect workplace enforcement, either.
    One of the results will be more gray market work. More people
    will work for cash under the table. But there is no question
    that it could have a big impact in reducing the ease with which
    unauthorized migrants can find employment. But we would want
    to, again, as part of an ongoing process, monitor the impact of
    that as carefully as we can in terms of illegal migrant flows.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you. Ms. Meissner.
        Ms. Meissner. Let me add one other element to what has
    already been said. I agree with what has been said. The other
    element here, of course, is that about 35, 40 percent of the
    people in the unauthorized population are probably there
    because they are overstaying visas. They have nothing to do
    with coming across the Southwest border with Mexico.
        Chairman Carper. So they started out on----
        Ms. Meissner. So they started out as a foreign student or
    as a visitor, or whatever, and they overstayed their visa.
    Again, we do not know the proportion because the Government
    does not put data out on it, so the research on that comes from
    the most recent Pew Hispanic Center, probably 5, 6 years ago.
    But let us just say it is 40 percent. That percentage is likely
    to go up the more that border enforcement on the Southwest
    border succeeds because less people, arguably, would be
    crossing the Southwest border and becoming part of the resident
    unauthorized population than would be overstaying visas.
        The best way to deal with the visa overstay is the
    employment point. That is the most logical intervention,
    because those people, too, are overstaying largely for purposes
    of working in the United States. So employer enforcement is the
    most direct way to get to a very large chunk, and possibly a
    growing chunk, of the unauthorized population, to the extent
    that it continues.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you.
        My second question I want to ask of each of you, and maybe
    we will reverse the order here, reverse the flow, and Ms.
    Meissner, I am going to ask you to go first, but here is the
    question. Would new legal programs for lower-skilled migrants
    reduce the incentive to migrate illegally to the United States?
    We have had some discussion of this already, but I would like
    to just ask that directly and hear from each of you.
        Ms. Meissner. Yes, it would. I think that is one of the
    main lessons coming out of 1986 and the Immigration Reform and
    Control Act (IRCA) that we did not do. We thought of it as a
    closed box. We did not foresee that the issues of migration
    would be continuing issues in our labor market. That is far
    more acute now, however, than 25 years ago because of our own
    demographics, the aging of our society, the global labor market
    and global economy in which we live and compete. Immigration
    and immigration tied to our labor market needs is clearly a
    part of our future as an economy and as a competitive economy.
        Therefore, it is essential that we have ways of bringing
    those people to this country across all skill spectrums--
    across the entire skill spectrum--in legal ways. And so we need
    to do that as part of immigration reform, but it does need to
    be combined with effective enforcement, because no matter what,
    there will be more demand to come to the United States than
    there will be legitimate opportunities. So good future flow
    provisions along with solid enforcement is the best we know of
    where to go with this.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you. Mr. Alden.
        Mr. Alden. There is an interesting historical example, and
    credit Dr. Roberts for the research on this for our paper. If
    you look back in the 1950s, there had been a big spike in
    illegal migration in the early 1950s, actually, a million
    apprehensions, I think it was in 1953 or 1954. As a response,
    the Eisenhower Administration did two things. They expanded the
    quota of the Bracero Program dramatically, which was the farm
    worker program at the time. Now, I acknowledge all of the real
    human rights, labor rights issues with the Bracero Program. I
    am not advocating Bracero.
        But you look historically. A big expansion of the Bracero
    Program coupled with very tough enforcement, what was
    infamously known as Operation Wetback, which was rounding up
    lots of people living without status in the United States,
    either sending them back to Mexico or forcing them into the
    Bracero Program to work as authorized Bracero workers.
        What we see in the apprehensions data is it plunges in the
    years after, down to a level of roughly 80,000 annually. During
    this period of time, the Border Patrol is monitoring conditions
    in the agricultural economy very carefully to try to assess
    where might there be spikes in people coming over. That whole
    period through the end of the Bracero Program in 1964, we have
    very low levels of apprehensions. The numbers are typically
    fewer than 100,000 per year. After the elimination of the
    Bracero Program, those numbers start to spike again and we have
    the modern rise.
        So I think there is an interesting historical experiment,
    then, which for all the problems with Bracero, which for all of
    the problems with the way enforcement was done in the 1950s--
    again, I am not advocating these--seems to indicate that a
    combination of legal paths for lower-skilled workers plus tough
    enforcement does, in fact, reduce illegal migration
    substantially.
        Chairman Carper. Dr. Shirk.
        Mr. Shirk. I agree with everything that has been said, for
    the most part. I just would point out that the challenge, I
    think, on workplace visas is that there is enormous complexity
    to the number of workplace visa types that we have. We have the
    A-1. We have high-skilled--I am sorry, the H-1. We have H-2A
    and H-2B. We have numerous different categories of visas and
    often there is a cost for the employer to contract workers to
    take them in as temporary workers.
        As a result of that, we tend to have larger firms taking
    advantage of workplace visa opportunities, bringing people in
    from Mexico or other places. But for smaller firms that have
    maybe one or two people that they need in the back of a kitchen
    or something like that, the cost of doing all the paperwork and
    paying the costs associated with those workplace visas are
    relatively high, which means that it is much easier to go to
    the black market or the gray market around the corner, hire
    some guy off the street. If workplace visas were made more
    flexible and accessible so that smaller companies could take
    advantage of them, I think that would be a huge benefit.
        In particular, with regard to the border region, I would
    like to point out that we have a category called the B-1 visa
    and iterations on that B-1 visa which allow border residents
    from Baja, California, and other border States in Mexico to
    cross over for the purposes of shopping and for visits with
    family, et cetera. They are not allowed to work. But the
    reality is that you have large numbers of people crossing the
    border with their B-1 visa and soliciting employment in the
    informal sector. In my mind, it would make much more sense and
    would greatly facilitate the border economy as a whole to
    actually make those B-1 visas also eligible for temporary labor
    in those border communities.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Good.
        Third question, and this, I am going to start with you, Mr.
    Alden, if we could, and ask our other two witnesses to respond,
    as well. But the third question is where are the
    vulnerabilities for increased illegal migration the largest? At
    the ports of entry? Between the ports? Or through visa
    overstays? Mr. Alden.
        Mr. Alden. I would say--I would agree with Doris on visa
    overstay. Let me start there. I think that is likely to become
    a bigger vulnerability in the future. I think we have good
    tools to deal with it. We have a reasonably functioning
    biometric entry and biographic exit system. The Department of
    Homeland Security knows pretty accurately on a country-by-
    country basis how many people are overstaying. They,
    unfortunately, have not yet shared that information with the
    Congress, which is important. In fact, if you want to revise
    the Visa Waiver Program, which is a kind of separate issue, you
    need that data.
        We do not do simple things with visa holders advocated in a
    paper I wrote with an immigration attorney, Liam Schwartz, last
    year. We should send e-mail notifications. If you are here on a
    visa and your visa is going to expire, there should be an e-
    mail notification from the U.S. Government 30 days or 15 days
    or whatever before your visa is going to expire warning you
    that you need to make arrangements to go home or to renew your
    visa to remain lawfully. There is a lot of social science
    evidence that people tend to obey the law when they think
    somebody is watching. We do nothing as a Government to let
    people know we actually expect them to abide by the terms of
    their visa. Easy stuff that we do not do on that front.
        Chairman Carper. Do you have research that indicates
    whether or not these folks that are here illegally or overstay
    their welcome, that they ever text?
        Mr. Alden. Whether they what? Sorry.
        Chairman Carper. Use texting.
        Mr. Alden. Are they---- [Laughter.]
        Chairman Carper. We have a great program called Text for
    Baby that Johnson and Johnson helped us develop. This is an
    aside, but I will just mention it to you. And a lot of mothers,
    young mothers included, who do not in some cases have all the
    information, the knowledge about how to raise a little baby and
    get them started in this world, we have a new program called
    Text for Baby and we can text a new mom every day or whenever
    their kids are due for a check-up or immunizations, all kinds
    of stuff. It seems to work. It is cost effective. We call it
    Text for Baby. I mean, we could have Text for----
        Mr. Alden. Text for Visas.
        Ms. Meissner. Text for Going Home.
        Mr. Alden. It is just, like, easy, simple stuff that we
    should be doing.
        Chairman Carper. Right.
        Mr. Alden. Ports of entry, I think, are a bigger
    vulnerability than we recognize. If you look at the migrant
    survey data, it suggests that anywhere between about 10 and 25
    percent of people say they actually got into the United States
    through the ports of entry. I think we are underestimating the
    vulnerability there.
        There is also a really good commercial argument. I mean, if
    you are improving staffing and efficiency at the ports of
    entry, you get a two-fer. You get better security, so you are
    identifying and apprehending more people that are trying to
    come illegally or trying to smuggle drugs. But you also get
    greater efficiency, because, generally, the ports are
    understaffed, at least the busiest ones. We have these long
    lines.
        So unlike increases in the number of Border Patrol, where,
    really, the only purpose it serves is to stop illegal activity,
    at the ports, you get both stopping illegal activity and
    facilitating legal activity. So I think a deeper analysis of
    that would show that money is better spent at the ports of
    entry than it would be on additional enforcement between the
    ports of entry.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you. Dr. Shirk.
        Mr. Shirk. I will just build on that point about the ports
    of entry. One of the reasons why you see such a significant
    proportion of migrants crossing through the ports of entry has
    to do with the fact that they frequently resort to using false
    IDs or IDs falsely, and that problem, I think, would be
    alleviated if we expanded the use of Trusted Traveler
    initiatives at ports of entry.
        In the San Diego-Tijuana region, we estimate that somewhere
    around 40,000 to 60,000 of people who are crossing at the ports
    of entry do so on a daily basis. They come up for their own
    purposes and they go back home across to Tijuana on a daily
    basis. That means that the new faces at the border and the
    scrutiny that is needed should really be focused on the folks
    who are coming maybe for the first time, who are often in the
    situation of maybe they are using some false ID that was
    provided to them by a migrant smuggler. And so expanding and
    encouraging greater use of Trusted Traveler programs at the
    ports of entry, I think, would be a way of getting at that
    problem.
        But on visa--sorry. I do think that the overstays is the
    main area, the one, as Doris said, that we have the greatest
    purchase to gain in terms of trying to find ways of limiting
    opportunities and preventing people from falling into the trap
    of overstay. Tracking incoming and outgoing people on a more
    regular and effective basis would, I think, do a lot to address
    that problem.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Doris, do you want to share a thought
    or two on this question?
        Ms. Meissner. I mean, my vote goes for the POEs, as well. I
    am very concerned about the ports of entry, and we talk about
    that a great deal in this report that we did a little while
    ago.
        And, really, the ports of entry on the land border--the air
    ports of entry are working reasonably well. The U.S. Visitor
    Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (VISIT) Program and the
    IDENT Program is fully deployed in airports and that has been
    an enormous advance since 9/11.
        But the land ports of entry just deal with these enormous
    volumes of people, the vast majority of which are properly
    coming in and out of the country. So, I mean, arguably, they
    have the most difficult job, because they are dealing with the
    full range of reasons that people are coming, whereas anybody
    that the Border Patrol sees is doing something wrong, by
    definition. It may be really wrong, like a drug smuggler. It
    may be less threatening if it is purely somebody coming across
    illegally. But the ports of entry are much tougher.
        So that is a major infrastructure job from the start,
    because you need to have space to handle these volumes of
    people that are coming in, largely for the right reasons. And
    that is a multi-year buildup. It is, I believe, money that
    would need to go to the General Services Administration (GSA),
    not to any of the immigration agencies. So you have a whole
    different set of players and planning and execution that needs
    to be put into place.
        But, I would also say, in the way that David points out
    when we started really working on the border in 1994, it was a
    very different place physically from what it is now. I mean,
    tons and tons of earth has been moved and lots and lots of
    brush has been cleared, and roads have been built, et cetera.
    So you have to just start at some point. And this
    infrastructure improvement, particularly on the Southwest
    border with Mexico, is essential to our economic future. It is
    not only an enforcement issue. It is an economic issue for the
    country, the United States, for Mexico, for the region. And if
    we begin down that path, we will do much, much better on
    enforcement because we have the technology. We just cannot
    deploy the technology.
        Chairman Carper. Good. Thank you.
        A couple more questions and we are going to start a vote
    and send you on your way.
        One of the goals of this hearing is to discuss what more
    needs to be done to secure our borders. Obviously, we are
    making progress. What more can be done? You all mentioned in
    your testimony we invest heavily in securing the border between
    the ports of entry. I said that in my opening statement.
        During my trip to Arizona with Senator McCain and
    Congressman McCaul and Secretary Napolitano, I heard a number
    of frontline agents say that what they really need is more
    technology and more air support. I talked about some of that
    earlier. They also said that the ports of entry really need our
    attention and our help, and I heard some of you say that here
    this morning, as well.
        So my question for each of you is this. Let us drill down
    on this a little bit. What more do you think we need to do
    along our borders? A simple question, probably not a simple
    answer. But what more do you think we need to do along our
    borders? Doris, would you like to go first?
        Ms. Meissner. Well, let me start with talking about the
    technology. I do not know myself what additional technology we
    need. But I do know, based on a lot of experience, that I place
    a high value on what the Border Patrol itself says it needs in
    technology. I think the Border Patrol has become very savvy
    about its understanding of how to use technology. I do think
    that they need outside encouragement, let us say, on some of
    the issues that we have talked about, where metrics
    measurement, et cetera, are concerned.
        But where the kind of technology that works for them is
    concerned, I would put a great deal of faith in what they say,
    particularly because they know the nature of the environment in
    which they are working. You talked about it in terms of the
    times the drones can and cannot be used, the weather
    conditions, the temperature, the winds. All of these sorts of
    things are reality that is difficult to put into the equation
    from the outside, but they know those realities.
        So the technology issues, I think, are always going to be
    there and we need to always be improving and investing in them.
        Beyond that, where the ports of entry are concerned, and to
    add to our earlier discussion and my earlier comments, the
    ports of entry also need to be far more rigorous in their
    management of what it is that they do. They are very
    individualistic, port to port, in the definitions that they use
    for their enforcement actions. They do not have nearly the kind
    of data gathering intensity that is the case with the Border
    Patrol. So on the ports of entry, it is not only an issue of
    their infrastructure. It is also an issue of their operations
    and their data gathering, which really do need to be more
    sophisticated and have a much better sense of standard norms
    and discipline.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks. Mr. Alden.
        Mr. Alden. This is one of those questions that I am a
    little reluctant to weigh in on because I cannot pretend to
    know more than the Border Patrol does about what technology
    will be effective in that environment.
        And I do think if you look over the history of legislation
    in the past, there is a tendency for Congress to micromanage at
    that level. I mean, it seems to me the right role is to say, we
    expect you to be able to carry out your law enforcement
    mission. We want the arrows to be moving in the right
    direction. We want to measure what is happening. We need you to
    tell us what you need to perform that mission, and then we as a
    Congress need to decide what we are willing to pay for it, I
    mean, how much are incremental improvements in apprehension
    rates or in reducing illegal--how much is that worth to us as a
    country?
        I think that is the right sort of discussion for Congress
    to be having, and obviously, you need to listen and the
    Administration needs to listen to what the needs of the agency
    are. But I really think the focus should be on results more
    than on inputs, and then let the experts, the guys who work in
    that region on the ground--and the girls, the people who are on
    the front line decide.
        Chairman Carper. Hold it right there. That is a great
    answer. Thank you. Dr. Shirk.
        Mr. Shirk. I would simply say that I think the more we can
    help the Border Patrol and Customs to focus on the harms rather
    than the known harmless, the more they will be effective.
        Chairman Carper. Say that again.
        Mr. Shirk. The more we help them to focus on the harms than
    the harmless, in other words, the large numbers of people who
    are crossing legally, for example, and who cross on a regular
    basis, we know--we see them every day. In many cases, the folks
    that I live with in my community say, yes, I see the same
    Border Patrol agent every day, but I have to go through the
    same 2-hour line or 3-hour line every morning to get across the
    border to come shop or study, et cetera, in San Diego. So
    helping to move those people through more efficiently will
    allow the Border Patrol and Customs to focus on those less-
    familiar faces that need a second look.
        And so if I had an extra billion dollars to throw at this
    problem, I think I would first focus on alleviating legitimate
    flows by expanding the use of Trusted Travelers programs.
        Chairman Carper. Good. Thanks.
        During the recent trip I talked about earlier, we met with
    several Mayors from towns at or near the borders who said that
    their communities are being hurt by incorrect perceptions of
    the border. They say people hear about drug-related violence in
    Mexico and assume it is permeating nearby towns on the U.S.
    side. In fact, crime statistics show that those U.S.
    communities are among the safest in the country. It is a great
    irony, is it not?
        On the other side, we met with some ranchers who had a very
    different story to tell, and Senator McCain was there with us
    and he has met with them, I know, many times before. But they
    feel, understandably, still feel threatened by cross-border
    smuggling. Not all, but a number of them do.
        How can we assess the safety of communities near the
    Southwest border? And that would include the communities where
    people have the nice big ranches, hundreds of acres, thousands
    of acres, and those are some of the folks that say they still
    do not feel safe. Not everybody, but a number of them do not.
    How can we assess the safety of communities like--including
    those near the Southwest border? Mr. Alden.
        Mr. Alden. I am going to defer to Dr. Shirk on some of this
    because of his experience in the region. I do not think some of
    the metrics help you get at that. I mean, there are going to be
    particular places along the border where you have property
    owned by Americans and they feel under siege because their
    property has become an entry route for smuggling of drugs or of
    unauthorized migrants.
        I think that has to be dealt with locally. There has to be
    close cooperation between the Border Patrol and those
    individuals to try to address those problems. I do not think
    any of the really big picture stuff that we are talking about
    here today helps you solve that problem.
        The perception problem, I agree. I mean, I have spent a lot
    of time in the cities along the border. Those are very safe
    places. I have never felt nervous. I think the residents of
    those places do not feel nervous. I think that is a push back
    on the perception issue, and I know Secretary Napolitano talks
    about this a lot. I think that is important.
        But, you know, there is no perfect solution here. You are
    always going to have places where people feel vulnerable, that
    are preferred routes for whatever reason, and I think those
    need to be dealt with seriously but on a local basis. It is not
    a 30,000-foot view.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Thank you. Dr. Shirk.
        Mr. Shirk. Three of my graduate students--Marisol Martinez,
    Sara Nettleton, and Jamie Lenio--worked with me on a project
    funded by CRS to assess the problem of spillover violence a
    couple of years ago, and what we found--one of the things that
    we found is that, actually, the further you get away from the
    border, the less safe you are because of the very low crime
    rates we see in U.S. border cities. You are almost three times
    as likely to be murdered if you go away from the border toward
    any of the other top 300 largest cities in the United States.
        But I think one problem with dealing with some of those
    specific experiences of the ranchers and other folks that live
    along the border and do have to deal with very real problems
    and fears is that how we have discussed and measured spillover
    violence is not very intellectually honest. The official agency
    definitions for spillover violence that are used by the U.S.
    Government do not count drug trafficking organization (DTO)-on-
    drug trafficking organization violence. So if there is a
    shootout between two drug traffickers in the San Diego Mall,
    that would not count as spillover violence as long as they did
    not hit an innocent civilian.
        So I think that we need to think carefully about what kinds
    of problems we are actually seeing. But the net data and what
    we have available through Uniform Crime Report (UCR) crime data
    suggests that border communities really are quite safe.
        The one metric on which I would like to see more data or be
    able to try to get at the problem a little bit better is
    kidnapping, which is not something that is measured in a
    uniform way throughout the United States and by the FBI. So
    that is an area where we could really do a better job of
    assessing some of the problems in Senator McCain's state.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Thank you. Doris.
        Ms. Meissner. I do not really have anything to add. I would
    subscribe to what Ted said about these being largely local
    issues. And I know that is not comforting to the people that
    are experiencing them, but I also do know that the Border
    Patrol has a very strong history and can work effectively
    locally, particularly with the kind of staffing it now has, on
    addressing some of those issues. So I think that we just have
    to recognize that, at the end of the day, this will always be
    imperfect, but the overall picture that has been painted here
    is the prevailing condition of the border. And it is a far cry
    from what it used to be.
        Chairman Carper. Well, we are just about at the finish line
    here. It has been illuminating and timely and helpful.
        When Senator McCain was here, he mentioned the OTMs, the
    other than Mexican folks who are trying to come to this country
    illegally. We are seeing, actually, I think, some encouraging
    developments in Mexico. Their economy continues to strengthen.
    They have a growing middle class. I think the leadership of the
    country is trying to do their best to quash the illegal drug
    cartels and to just restore the kind of safety in their own
    country and kind of lawful order that you would hope for in
    every country.
        One of the folks that we talked to down on the border in
    Arizona was one of the Mayors or sheriffs. He talked about a
    balloon. You squeeze it in one place and it pops out in
    another, and I think we may be seeing some of that with respect
    to the countries to the South of Mexico.
        But one of those countries is Colombia, way down South, and
    that was a country that a lot of people were ready to give up
    on 20 years ago. I heard a lot of people call it a failed
    nation, or very close to that. I think it was Colombia where, I
    do not know, 25 years ago, some criminals rounded up, I think,
    most of the Supreme Court, took them into a room, and killed
    them all, about 11 of them. If that is not a failed nation or
    close to it, I do not know what is.
        Colombia is a changed country today and it is a much safer
    country and a much more profitable and prosperous country
    today. And I think we are seeing some encouraging turn-around
    in Mexico, as well. There are a bunch of countries in between
    Mexico and Colombia, particularly just South of Mexico, that I
    think may need our help, not just in terms of law enforcement
    help, but just help to strengthen their economies so that their
    folks will want to stay there and work there and not feel the
    need to leave, and also to try to, as best we can from a
    distance, to promote more vibrant democracies and civil
    liberties.
        The other thing I want to mention is improvements in--we
    talked about force multipliers and we talked about being able
    to fully resource the drones and have better intelligence
    packages and sensor packages on the blimps or the dirigibles or
    the aerostats we use and have better radar on the ground in
    parts of the Arizona border and all. Those are all important,
    but also to continue to improve the intelligence that we are
    getting from Mexico and from other countries to the South of
    Mexico that will enable us to better deploy our resources is
    important.
        I am told by pretty knowledgeable people that we are better
    at that than we used to be and those countries are better at it
    than they used to be, as well. And the question is, can we do
    better? Sure, we could do better, and we need to do better in
    all these things that we are talking about.
        When I leave a hearing like this, I always take some take-
    aways with me, and some of the best take-aways I get are right
    at the end of the hearing when I ask--you give an opening
    statement. Witnesses are always asked to give an opening
    statement. I usually like to ask my witnesses to give a closing
    statement, and especially in this case. I always look for
    consensus on difficult issues, and I think we have a fair
    amount of consensus with this panel.
        But just maybe give us a minute, about a minute take-away.
    You can reiterate or reemphasize, underline some of the things
    that you have said or heard, maybe something you have learned
    or that has been reinforced for you.
        But, Dr. Shirk, I will start with you. Give us sort of like
    a mini-benediction here, something to take home with us from
    church.
        Mr. Shirk. Well, I would simply reiterate, I think as the
    discussion has unfolded about immigration, there has been some
    talk about making border enforcement, border security, a
    precondition for immigration reform. And I want to caution
    against that, because as we have said multiple times during the
    hearing, it may be that reducing the pressure on the border by
    allowing for an expanded flow of legal migrants into the
    country by reforming our immigration system would actually make
    it easier for the Border Patrol to do their job and make us
    safer along the border.
        A couple of other very quick comments in response to what
    you just said. I mean, Colombia is much safer today, but it
    does still have a homicide rate that is 50 percent higher than
    Mexico's and the most internal refugees of any other country
    outside of Sudan. So one of the things I worry about for Mexico
    is that the legacy of the violence that we have seen in recent
    years will continue and we need to be alert to that problem.
        And to the extent that the situation in Mexico appears to
    be stabilizing, we need to be careful about how we interpret
    what is happening. It is not clear that less violence
    necessarily means more law enforcement, and the possibility
    that the drug cartels and drug markets are stabilizing under a
    new equilibrium could mean we will have continued challenges as
    we address the drug problem between our two countries in the
    future.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you. Mr. Alden.
        Mr. Alden. Thank you. I just have three concluding
    thoughts. One, I think that there is absolutely no question
    that border enforcement in all its facets is vastly better,
    vastly stronger, than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20
    years ago. No question, we have seen big improvement there. So
    I think that has to be the starting point.
        My second point would be effective border enforcement,
    border security, does not mean 100 percent. We are not going to
    stop everybody who wants to get in illegally. We are a big
    country. The great historical example here that, again, Bryan
    Roberts dug up, you can calculate roughly an apprehension rate
    for the cold war border between East Germany and West Germany.
    So this was a border with roughly----
        Chairman Carper. Say that again. Say that sentence again.
        Mr. Alden. The cold war border between East Germany and
    West Germany----
        Chairman Carper. OK.
        Mr. Alden [continuing]. This was a border with roughly
    three times the staffing we have on our border now, shoot to
    kill orders, barbed war, no man's land, floodlights. The
    apprehension rate on that border, roughly 95 percent. About a
    thousand people a year still managed to get across that border
    to freedom in the West.
        So if people are really determined to cross borders, you
    are not going to be able to stop them entirely. So we have to
    be realistic in what our goals are. Absolutely, we can do
    better. But perfection cannot be the goal here.
        And then the final point I would make is that I do not
    believe we are going to see the sort of big resurgence in
    unauthorized migration that we saw in the 1980s and the 1990s.
    The demographics do not lean that way. The economics do not
    lean that way. But we as a country are going to need to be
    serious in an ongoing way about managing the problem of illegal
    migration.
        There is going to be pressure going forward. There are
    always going to be people in the world wanting to come here.
    And we just were not serious about that as a country in the
    1980s and until well into the 1990s. And so that means
    seriousness about enforcement and real legal options for people
    to come to take the pressure off of the Border Patrol and other
    people who are aiming to keep people from coming illegally. So
    this is an ongoing issue we are going to have to deal with as a
    Nation.
        Chairman Carper. That was a very nice summary. That was a
    good benediction. Two of them, in fact.
        All right, Doris. The pressure is on.
        Ms. Meissner. The pressure is on.
        Chairman Carper. They are tough acts to follow.
        Ms. Meissner. I think where the Southwest border is
    concerned--all of our borders, but the focus is always on the
    Southwest border in this debate--we simply have to recognize
    that this is a very dynamic place and it will be so into the
    foreseeable future. So we cannot be complacent about what we
    have achieved. But at the same time, we have a very strong new
    reality, and set of improvements on which to build.
        And so recognizing that it is always going to be dynamic,
    we will have to react in different ways. We will have to be
    measuring, be adjusting our operations in response, et cetera,
    et cetera. That has to be a given. But at the end of the day,
    right now, that ability to enforce the laws on the Southwest
    border--as well as border enforcement more generally--would be
    most fully strengthened by taking some of the other steps in
    the immigration reform debate that are now on the table. This
    includes better employer enforcement, a better way of bringing
    people into the country legally, and dealing with the illegal
    status of the unauthorized population that is in the country
    right now. All of these things would contribute importantly to
    improved border enforcement. We are asking border enforcement
    to do more today than it is equipped to do, even if it were
    perfect, and it will not be perfect.
        So we have to recognize that enforcement deals with
    symptoms. We have to go more fully to the real causes of
    illegal immigration and align our laws with our economic
    reality, with our future needs, and then continue to have a
    strong enforcement presence and be committed to adjusting that
    as we go.
        Chairman Carper. Well, I asked for a benediction, so I
    should probably offer an amen. Last year, we did a lot of
    political advertisements, and you would hear at the end of each
    of the ads, you would hear someone say, ``I approve this
    message.'' And we have three good closing messages there and I
    approve them all.
        Thank you. This has been a great hearing and we appreciate
    your preparation and your years of work in this area and your
    efforts today to try to better inform us on our decisionmaking.
    It is just enormously helpful and we are grateful. Nice to see
    you all. Thanks so much.
        The hearing record will remain open for 15 days for the
    submission of statements and questions for the record.
        And with that, this hearing is adjourned and we are going
    to go vote. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           BORDER SECURITY: FRONTLINE

               PERSPECTIVES ON PROGRESS AND REMAINING CHALLENGES

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
    Carper, presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Levin, Landrieu, Baldwin, Tester,
    Coburn, McCain, Johnson, and Ayotte.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER

        Chairman Carper. Well, I have three glasses of water here
    set up before me. Somebody must think this is going to be a
    long hearing, or at least that I am going to need a lot of
    nourishment.
        But I just want to bring us to order. It is not a very
    unruly group, but we are grateful for your presence here and
    thanks for your willingness to testify and to respond to the
    questions we have.
        Dr. Coburn and I had a breakfast meeting with Secretary
    Napolitano. He had to run over to the House for a little bit
    for a meeting over there and he will be joining us probably
    during the course of your testimonies.
        I think this is the second in a series of hearings that our
    Committee is holding to review the progress that has been made
    in securing our borders and to identify what challenges remain
    to be addressed.
        Normally, I go home at night to Delaware. I stayed down to
    have a meeting last night and an early breakfast meeting this
    morning, as I mentioned, and so I stayed down last night. I
    like to start most of my days by working out. Usually, it is in
    the YMCA back home or I run back in Delaware before I catch the
    train, but this morning, I stopped off at the Senate gym, the
    little Senate gym that we have. It seems like most of the
    Senators that have been working on immigration reform were
    there and trying to figure out, are our borders more secure and
    how do we measure that.
        So today's hearing is probably even more germane than you
    think. It is something we talked about a lot over breakfast
    this morning with the Secretary and Dr. Coburn, as well.
        In the last 2 months, I have had the real privilege of
    visiting with some of our frontline border security personnel.
    Most recently along our Northern borders--it turns out I am a
    huge Detroit Tigers fan, and for no really good reason, but to
    be in Detroit during the first week of baseball season--and to
    spend some time with Senator Levin up along the water border
    with Canada, which, as you know, is enormous. But I was
    privileged to go with Senator McCain down along the border
    between Arizona and Mexico and to spend some time down there
    with Congressman McCaul and Secretary Napolitano.
        And during my trip to Arizona in February, I saw a border
    that appears to me to be--and to a lot of other people--more
    secure than it has ever been, or has been in a long time--by
    any measure that we have available to us at this moment. In
    addition, I spoke with, along with Senator McCain, a bunch of
    his local mayors and law enforcement officers who told me that
    the crime rates in their communities were at the lowest level
    in decades and were continuing to decline.
        I saw parts of the border that were overrun with
    unauthorized immigration as recently as 2006, when the Border
    Patrol agents I met with told me they used to arrest more than
    1,000 people every single today. And today, those agents tell
    me that they have a busy day if they arrest even 50 people.
    That is a remarkable development and clearly a significant
    change for the better. It is also consistent with the dramatic
    reductions that we see nationwide, in the United States, of
    people trying to cross our borders illegally, which have
    reached their lowest level since the early 1970s.
        I also saw advanced surveillance technology, such as the
    cameras and radars that we are deploying to serve as force
    multipliers for our folks on the ground. The men and women I
    spoke with told me that these technologies help them quickly
    pinpoint where people are trying to cross the border illegally
    so that their agents can be deployed in time to make an arrest
    or turn them back.
        We heard about a remarkable new radar being tested on a
    drone called the VADER, that is providing the Border Patrol
    with an unprecedented view of the people coming across the
    border. Another new radar system being tested allows agents to
    detect physical changes to the ground, such as footsteps, to
    identify where illegal traffic is heading.
        And while some of these technologies are expensive, I also
    saw an inexpensive and versatile aircraft called a C-206, a
    small plane, which is easy to fly and maintain. It can be used
    to provide an efficient surveillance platform for agents on the
    ground. We also heard about inexpensive blimps or dirigibles
    that can be deployed to help agents detect illegal activities.
        What I have seen gives me great hope that we have made
    tangible and measurable gains in securing our Nation's borders
    over the past decade and have a good sense of what we need to
    do to build on that progress. We have to rely on intelligence
    and advanced technology, to identify when and where the threats
    are crossing our borders and to empower the frontline officers
    on the ground.
        Despite the gains that we have made, we still face
    significant challenges. First is the fact that arrests cannot
    be the only metric available to measure the performance of our
    efforts at the border. Without knowing how many people are
    actually trying to cross the border, we will never know how
    effective our efforts truly are to date. That is a hard thing
    to come up with; is it not?
        Our witnesses at the Committee's first border security
    hearing, while noting the significant progress that has been
    made over the years in securing our borders, also pointed out
    the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) keeps a variety of
    internal statistics on illegal activities at and between the
    ports of entry that it does not make public. I just do not
    think that is acceptable.
        It is critical that the Department of Homeland Security do
    a better job of educating the public and Congress on how it
    measures its effectiveness at the borders, and it must include
    estimates for the number of people trying to cross the border
    without proper documentation.
        Another one of the challenges that most concerns me is the
    growing sophistication of the smuggling networks operating
    along our borders, particularly with respect to illegal drugs.
    Drug cartels are using tunnels, ultralight aircraft, and even
    submarines to avoid detection along our borders and along our
    coasts. They place spotters on the tops of our mountains to
    help them avoid law enforcement. On top of our mountains. It
    blows my mind. I have said this to Senator McCain--that we have
    these folks out there sitting on our mountains, on our
    mountaintops, and we somehow are unable to take them out. If
    they are sitting on a mountaintop in Iraq, I think we would
    have taken them out. And one of the things we can talk about
    here today is our inability to replicate that kind of success
    here.
        There are troubling links between organized crime in Mexico
    and terrorist groups overseas.
        In order to meet these new challenges and to continue to
    improve our security efforts, we have to evolve our approach to
    securing our borders. We have to become smarter in how we
    deploy our limited resources and focus on deploying these force
    multipliers that we witnessed in Arizona.
        In addition, it is important to note that while most of the
    security debate is focused on the issues between our ports of
    entry, much of the illegal traffic comes through our actual
    ports. Since
    9/11, we have made tremendous improvements in screening people
    who are attempting to enter our country. Today, all travelers
    must present a secure ID at the border. They are automatically
    screened against all of our government's law enforcement,
    immigration, and terrorism databases in order to ensure that
    dangerous people are not allowed to enter our country.
        But we continue to be faced with significant infrastructure
    challenges. After declining after 9/11, travel and trade have
    ramped up in recent years, and that is a good thing.
    International arrivals to the United States have been
    increasing by some 6 percent a year over the past several
    years. But staffing at our air, land, and sea ports has not
    kept up. Our ports of entry need to be modernized, and staffed
    appropriately, to keep pace with these increases in travel and
    trade that we are seeing, which is encouraging.
        We also need to make our ports of entry work more
    efficiently, so we can focus our inspections on potential
    threats rather than on legitimate travelers. This includes
    expanding trusted traveler membership, creating public-private
    partnerships, and working with the public to better identify
    wrong-doers. It could also include modernizing our fee so that
    importers and travelers are fully paying for the costs of
    inspecting travelers and goods. We expect to hear from the
    Administration later this morning on that subject when the
    President's budget is released.
        Last, as organized crime continues to evolve and become
    more sophisticated, we need our criminal investigators to do
    the same. We must continue to focus our efforts working in
    integrated multi-agency teams, such as the Border Enforcement
    Security Task Forces. These task forces allow investigators to
    collaborate across agency lines, sharing information about
    known and suspected smugglers in order to generate intelligence
    about their operations that can be used to attack criminal
    networks.
        There is no doubt that we have more work to do, but I
    believe that any honest assessment of where things stand today
    will conclude that we have made tremendous gains in securing
    our border over the past decade. As the Senate begins to
    consider comprehensive immigration reform this month, I believe
    that the conversation will be different from the ones we had in
    2006. In 2006, the perception that the border was out of
    control was grounded in historically high rates of illegal
    immigration. Today, illegal immigration is at historic lows,
    and as I have seen firsthand in Arizona, more recently in
    Michigan this last week, and in California a couple of years
    ago, the unprecedented taxpayer-funded investments that we have
    made to secure our borders are working.
        In fact, yesterday, I met with the former Commissioner of
    Customs and Border Protection, Alan Bersin, and he told me
    that, in his views, the increase in border security has been
    one of the greatest bipartisan accomplishments over the past 25
    years because it has spanned three Administrations, Presidents
    from both parties, and has had strong support from members,
    both Democrat and Republican. And frankly, I agree with him.
        I support the efforts to modernize our immigration laws. I
    applaud the efforts, particularly of Senator McCain and others
    that he is working with, to make the United States more
    competitive and more secure in the 21st Century. I look forward
    to working with my colleagues to ensure that any additional
    investments made to continue to secure our borders are targeted
    to the kinds of force multipliers that are proven to be
    effective, and that represent good investment.
        Normally, I would turn it over to Dr. Coburn, who, as I
    said earlier, is over in the House meeting with some folks. He
    will be here shortly. Normally, I do not turn to other Members
    of the Committee to make opening statements. We have a couple
    of key players here, and Senator McCain spent a whole lot of
    time, to good effect, working with seven of our colleagues to
    try to find a path forward on immigration reform. He was good
    enough to take me down along the border. John, if there is
    something you would like to say before, I maybe ask the
    Chairman of our appropriations Subcommittee who is here today?
    John, please feel free to go ahead.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN

        Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your
    opening statement covered the issue. I welcome the witnesses
    and I look forward to some interesting comments and testimony
    on this issue. It comes at a very opportune time, as we are
    hopefully concluding our negotiations.
        And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time
    from your schedule to come and visit our border and the people
    who live there. I know all of us are appreciative of your
    continued intense interest in this issue.
        Chairman Carper. Happy to be your partner.
        Senator Landrieu, anything you would like to add? Please.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Yes. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for
    taking the leadership to do this very important overview as we
    enter into one of the most important debates for our Nation.
    And I really particularly want to underscore the importance of
    understanding the financial requirements that will be behind
    such an important undertaking.
        We have in the last 10 years almost tripled from--well,
    more than tripled, from $1 billion to $3.5 billion, the
    resources going in to protect the borders of Arizona,
    California, Texas, I mean, borders of our country, but really
    impacting these States primarily along the Mexican border. I am
    sure that we can find some resources to do more, but Mr.
    Chairman, it has been a real push in our budget to actually
    fund the outline of what this Committee and others put forward.
    So it is going to be a real challenge for us in these very
    tough times, so I just wanted to let people know we are doing
    the best we can in a $42 billion budget, but there are lots of
    pulls and pushes on the Homeland Security budget right now.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I think we are lucky that Senator Landrieu serves on this
    Committee and also is the principal appropriator. It has the
    potential for a great partnership and I think this potential is
    going to be fully realized, and one that we all can be part of,
    as well.
        I want to say good morning to Senator Tester. How are you,
    Jon.
        Senator Tester. Very well.
        Chairman Carper. Nice to see you, partner.
        I am going to go through just a brief introduction of our
    witnesses. I am going to stumble on the first last name. Is it
    McAleenan? How do you pronounce it?
        Mr. McAleenan. That is perfect, Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. All right. It is not often I am perfect.
        Our first witness is Kevin McAleenan, Acting Deputy
    Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In
    this capacity, the Deputy Commissioner is the chief operating
    official of Customs and Border Protection. He looks pretty
    young to have that kind of responsibility. Previously, Mr.
    McAleenan served as the Acting Assistant Commissioner of CBP's
    Office of Field Operations, leading the agency's port security
    and facilitation operations. Welcome.
        Our second witness is Michael Fisher. Mr. Fisher is the
    Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, and in this position, Chief
    Fisher has responsibility for planning, coordinating, and
    directing enforcement efforts to secure our Nation's borders.
    Prior to his current position, Chief Fisher served in a number
    of leadership positions within the Border Patrol. Chief Fisher
    joined the Border Patrol as a child, in 1987.
        Our third witness is Randolph Alles? How is it pronounced?
        Mr. Alles. Yes, sir. Close enough.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Assistant Commissioner for U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection, Office of Air and Marine. Mr.
    Alles--do you really pronounce it that way? How do you really
    pronounce it?
        Mr. Alles. ``Alles,'' if you want to be really technical.
        Chairman Carper. ``Alles''?
        Mr. Alles. ``Alles,'' long A.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Good. Thank you. Mr. Alles joined the
    Office of Air and Marine as the Deputy Assistant Commissioner
    in March 2012. And before joining CBP, Mr. Alles served in the
    U.S. Marine Corps for 35 years, retiring in 2011 as a Major
    General. Semper Fi. Ready to go. As we say in the Navy, Bravo
    Zulu.
        Mr. Alles was designated as a naval aviator in 1978 and
    attained more than 5,000 flight hours--that is pretty
    impressive, John--more than 5,000 flight hours in multiple
    aircraft types. What kind of aircraft?
        Mr. Alles. A-4, F-18, F-4, sir.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Including over 300 combat
    hours. Did you serve in Southeast Asia?
        Mr. Alles. No, sir. Before my time. Iraq.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Thank you. Thanks for all that
    service, too.
        Our final witness is James A. Dinkins, Executive Associate
    Director of Homeland Security Investigations for the U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As the Director, Mr.
    Dinkins has direct oversight of ICE's investigative and
    enforcement initiatives and operations. Prior to assuming his
    current position, Mr. Dinkins held a number of key leadership
    positions within ICE, including Special Agent in Charge for
    Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. Mr. Dinkins began his law
    enforcement career with the U.S. Customs Service in 1986.
        Your entire statements will be made part of the record.
    Feel free to summarize. I will ask you to keep your statements
    to about 7 minutes, and if you go beyond that, I may have to
    rein you in. Your full statements will be made part of the
    record and once we finish, we will do some questions. We are
    delighted that you are here, grateful for your service,
    encouraged by the progress that is being made. Now, we can
    always do better, and part of our job is to help you and the
    folks that you lead to do better. Welcome. Please proceed.

    TESTIMONY OF KEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\1\ ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
    U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
                                SECURITY

        Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Carper
    and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today to discuss these important issues
    with you. We appreciate the Committee's leadership and
    commitment to ensuring the security of the American people and
    look forward to discussing some of the progress we have made
    that you outlined in securing the border, how we measure that
    progress, and the key areas we need to continue to address.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. McAleenan appears in the Appendix
    on page 176.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am representing CBP's Office of Field Operations today,
    and we carry out our border security activities in all 50
    States and 330 ports of entry and globally at 70 locations in
    40 countries abroad. Our priority mission is preventing
    terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country,
    while we also interdict inadmissible persons, illicit drugs,
    agricultural pests and animal diseases, unsafe imports, and
    goods that violate trade laws.
        At our ports of entry, security is defined not only by our
    ability to prevent dangerous goods and people from entering the
    country, but also how well we support economic security through
    the expeditious movement of travelers and cargo. In other
    words, at our ports of entry, a secure border is a well managed
    border where mission risks are effectively identified and
    addressed and legitimate trade and travel is expedited.
        With this Committee's support, CBP is more capable than
    ever before, but we remain committed to continuous improvement
    and we strive to develop programs and operations to make our
    border security efforts increasingly effective. As part of
    that, the process of measuring and addressing our progress is a
    constant focus.
        CBP uses a number of different types of metrics to assess
    our performance in managing our security risk and facilitation
    responsibilities. These metrics are both qualitative and
    quantitative, include both effectiveness and efficiency
    measures, and are assessed at the national, programmatic,
    regional, and port levels. We use these key indicators to
    assess our performance and evaluate trends and developments
    over time.
        It is important to emphasize that there is no single number
    or target level that can effectively capture the full scope of
    our security or facilitation efforts at ports of entry.
    Instead, there are a series of important indicators that we use
    to assess and refine our operations.
        Qualitatively, we look at measures we have in place to
    address specific risks, whether they are comprehensive, and
    whether they can be improved. Quantitatively, we use random
    baseline examinations of both people and goods to assess how
    effective our efforts to identify and address threats are and
    we use efficiency measures to determine whether our security
    operations are properly targeted.
        Last, at the ports, we use facilitation measures, such as
    traveler and vehicle wait times, to assess whether we are
    pursuing our security requirements and deploying our resources
    in a manner that expeditiously moves legitimate cross-border
    traffic.
        In this vein, I would like to highlight some of the
    progress we have made in some key mission areas.
        In our anti-terrorism mission, our priority mission, we
    measure our success by how effectively we identify potential
    risks and how early we take action to address them. In the last
    fiscal year, through our National Targeting Center, overseas
    programs, in coordination with the interagency, international,
    and private sector partners, CBP prevented 4,200 inadmissible
    and high-risk travelers from boarding flights to the United
    States, almost a tenfold increase from 2009, and identified and
    mitigated risks in over 100,000 ocean cargo containers and
    2,000 air cargo shipments before they could be laden on a
    vessel or loaded on an aircraft destined for the United States.
        Similarly, our ability to identify and deny admission to
    inadmissible persons seeking entry into the United States is a
    core mission where we have seen marked improvement with the
    implementation of new technology solutions. United States
    Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT)
    and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative have allowed us to
    reduce the number of acceptable documents and enhance
    biographic and biometric checks, serving as a significant
    deterrent to attempted illegal entries and the use of
    fraudulent documents. And overall, at the ports of entry, our
    arrests have increased while attempts by inadmissibles to enter
    have diminished.
        With regard to our counterdrug efforts, we are continually
    assessing how our border security activities have challenged or
    changed drug smugglers' ability to move illicit drugs into the
    United States through ports of entry. The significant increase
    in deployment of large-scale non-intrusive inspection equipment
    over the past 5 years has driven improvements in the
    effectiveness of our examinations. As a result, smugglers have
    changed their tactics, moving to smaller loads and much deeper
    and more sophisticated concealment methods, and some of the
    avoidance measures that you outlined, Chairman. Accordingly,
    larger marijuana seizures are trending down, while hard
    narcotic seizures have increased significantly, especially
    heroin and methamphetamine.
        We have also enhanced our efforts in both agriculture and
    trade protection to focus on those threats that present the
    greatest risk to the U.S. economy and public. We measure our
    success in this mission area using three key types of metrics:
    First, our total examinations; second, the interceptions and
    seizures they produce; and third, our effectiveness rate in
    undertaking those exams. All three show positive trends.
        In 2009 and 2010, we focused our agriculture protection
    efforts on increasing interceptions of the highest-risk
    agricultural pests that, if undetected, could result in
    millions of dollars of economic damage to U.S. agriculture. As
    a result, we have seen a more than 400 percent increase in
    interceptions of these most serious pests.
        These core border security missions are pursued in the
    context of significant growth in international trade and
    travel. Last year, CBP welcomed more than 350 million travelers
    at our air, land, and sea ports of entry and processed 25.3
    million cargo containers and over 100 million air cargo
    shipments, with a trade value of $2.3 trillion. Air travel is
    up more than 12 percent over the last 3 years and is expected
    to grow at 4 percent annually over the next several. Land
    border traffic is also increasing and our trade volumes are at
    record levels in all environments and continuing to grow.
        As a result, we have seen increased wait times in some
    environments. Securing these growing traffic levels without
    impeding them is our core challenge and we are tackling it head
    on through a series of innovative efforts to deploy new
    technology and transform our business processes. We are
    increasing enrollment in our Trusted Traveler Programs, like
    Global Entry, automated anachronistic paper forms, and
    deploying mobile technology to support our officers where the
    work is happening. We envision border processes that are
    seamless, paperless, and traveler directed, and we are pursuing
    them.
        In sum, we have increased our mission effectiveness and
    security across all threats and environments while facing
    increasing demands from growing passenger and trade volume, and
    we continue to seek ways to improve.
        Chairman Carper and Members of the Committee, thank you for
    this opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Thanks so much for that statement and
    for joining us today.
        Mr. Fisher, please proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL J. FISHER,\1\ CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL,
    U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
                                SECURITY

        Mr. Fisher. Chairman Carper and other distinguished Members
    of the Committee, it is indeed an honor to appear before you
    today to discuss progress and remaining challenges facing the
    men and women of the United States Border Patrol.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher appears in the Appendix on
    page 176.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In assessing border security progress, one only needs to
    travel the border and talk with front-line agents to witness
    and fully appreciate the investments made over the last decade
    or two. New roads and access to the immediate border have
    increased. Numerous technological advancements, both in static
    and mobile systems, have provided critical situational
    awareness and intelligence collection capabilities, while at
    the same time supporting agents during ground operations.
    Primary fence and vehicle barricades have fundamentally changed
    the way smuggling organizations operate, and aerial platforms
    with advanced technology have substantially increased the way
    we deploy on the ground and have led to increased effectiveness
    throughout the corridors along the Southwest border.
        Thanks in large part to this Committee's support,
    substantial investment in personnel, technology, and
    infrastructure along the Southwest border during the past
    several years has led to the reduction of illegal cross-border
    activity. This reduction in traffic is now enabling us to
    better respond to threats and managing risk.
        Over the past 2 years, advanced analytics and data
    assessments produced programs such as the Consequence Delivery
    System (CDS). CDS has allowed us to reduce the percentage of
    apprehensions that result in a voluntary return, from 41
    percent in 2011 to 22 percent in 2012. Moreover, the
    Consequence Delivery System has contributed to the reduction in
    the overall rate of recidivism, from a 6-year average of 24
    percent to 12 percent today.
        But as I have articulated in prior testimony, I will work
    to reduce the likelihood of attack against the Nation and to
    provide safety and security to our citizens as an ongoing
    mission. Our focus now is to expand our operation by taking an
    integrated approach that includes our partners at the Federal,
    State, local, and Tribal level, applying a risk-based strategy
    while moving toward a mobile and flexible workforce that can
    rapidly respond to emerging threats.
        Our challenges are many, not the least of which is our
    ongoing requirement for information and intelligence, which
    provides front-line agents critical insights about those that
    would seek illegal entry into the country. In addition,
    detection capability continues to be a critical need in our
    implementation plan, detection to queue response to an
    immediate threat and detection to provide strategic situational
    awareness.
        I am often asked the question, when will the border be
    secure? My general response is when there are no more dangerous
    people seeking entry into the country to do us harm. The extent
    to which the border is secure has more to do with known and
    evolving threats and our ability to respond to those threats
    and less to do with fluctuations in things like apprehension
    numbers.
        Although our progress has historically been described in
    terms of technology and infrastructure enhancements, the true
    value of our collective achievement rests with the agents and
    mission support personnel. Their selfless sacrifice and
    commitment to excellence exhibited every day nationwide is
    unmatched in law enforcement. What our agents continue to
    achieve in the face of adversity is no less than exemplary. I
    am proud to represent them here today.
        I look forward to working with the Committee to identify
    measures that adequately assess the state of the border and
    explain the return on the investment for the American people.
    Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
        General Alles, please proceed. Welcome.

      TESTIMONY OF RANDOLPH D. ALLES,\1\ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
     OFFICE OF AIR AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. Alles. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Carper
    and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is an honor to
    appear before you today with my colleagues to discuss the
    critical role of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in securing
    our Nation's borders. I appreciate the Committee's leadership
    and commitment to ensuring the security of the American people.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Alles appears in the Appendix on
    page 176.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Office of Air and Marine (OAM), as I will refer to them
    during my comments here, is the world's largest aviation and
    maritime law enforcement organization. It is a critical
    component of CBP's layered enforcement strategy for border
    security. We are composed of 1,200 Federal agents, 267
    aircraft, and 289 marine vessels, and we operate from 84
    locations throughout the United States.
        OAM protects the American people and the Nation's critical
    infrastructure through the coordinated use of integrated air
    and marine forces to detect, interdict, and prevent acts of
    terrorism and the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs,
    and other contraband toward or across the land and sea borders
    of the United States. At the borders, OAM's tactical support of
    CBP's antiterrorism and border security mission includes
    intercepting people and contraband crossing the land borders,
    intercepting aircraft and transportation vessels. To accomplish
    this, OAM develops information and partners with the Federal,
    State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to ensure our
    assets are in the right place at the right time and to effect a
    successful resolution to stopping illegal activities.
        Additionally, OAM utilizes its unique air and marine
    capabilities to provide support for law enforcement along with
    disaster recovery, emergency response operations. Over the past
    years, and consistent with our air and marine strategic plan,
    OAM has delivered an advanced array of new and upgraded
    aviation assets, some of which you saw, extremely capable of
    sensors, information integration and distribution capabilities
    in a variety of marine vessels.
        OAM recently delivered its seventh P-3 Orion aircraft with
    an additional 18 to 20 years of service life at a fraction of
    the cost of the new aircraft. Additionally, over the past seven
    years, we have added 70 new or upgraded medium-lift
    helicopters, light- or medium-lift helicopters, 18 new or
    upgraded fixed-wing aircraft, 10 Predator B unmanned aerial
    systems, 56 interceptor and riverine-type marine vessels, and
    other maritime and aviation sensors. We also stripped the first
    Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (PED) cell, at the
    Air and Marine Operations Center in California and North
    Dakota.
        Two of our most impressive recent capabilities have been
    the Multi-role Enforcement Aircraft (MEA) and broad area
    electronic sensors, which were referred to by the Chairman at
    the start of this session. The MEA provides CBP with a single
    aircraft to support border security missions and medium-range
    maritime patrol missions. The broad area electronic sensors,
    termed VADER, provide unparalleled situational awareness across
    the land borders and give Border agents near real-time actual
    information without the limitations of ground radars or optical
    sensors.
        Another key component of our security capabilities is the
    unmanned aircraft systems, the Predator. They provide critical
    aerial surveillance to personnel on the ground. We own 10 of
    those systems and its maritime variant, the Guardian, which
    composes 3 of the 10 systems. The Predator can monitor large
    areas of land efficiently, enhance situational awareness, and
    increase officer safety. They are particularly useful for
    detecting and targeting locations susceptible to border
    incursions.
        From June to July 2012, we deployed one of our assets to
    the Dominican Republican, flew 237 hours with that unmanned
    aerial vehicle (UAV), and we netted a total of 3,900 pounds of
    cocaine valued at over $300 million street value.
        Recently, and in conjunction with local authorities, OAM
    assisted California State and local enforcement in their search
    for Christopher Dorner, a former L.A. police officer who was
    suspected in multiple homicides and eluded capture for more
    than a week. On February 12, our riverside air unit launched an
    AS-350 helicopter to assist local authorities in their search
    after they traced Dorner to the San Bernadino Mountains, where
    he barricaded himself inside a cabin. We launched a PC-12
    Pilatus aircraft to provide ground support. An AS-350
    helicopter delivered one of Mr. Dinkins' agents, an ICE agent,
    to the command and control center along with equipment that
    allowed the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) commander to see
    the video feed from the PC-12, very helpful to that
    apprehension.
        Mr. Chairman, I know you are familiar with our P-3 aircraft
    and its effectiveness. CBP P-3 aircraft have been instrumental
    in reducing the flow of contraband from reaching the United
    States by detecting suspect vessels while they are still
    thousands of miles away from the U.S. border. In fiscal year
    2012, P-3 crews were involved in the seizure of more than
    117,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $8.8 billion. And in the
    first quarter of this year, they have been involved in the
    seizure of over $2.4 billion of cocaine.
        Working in conjunction with aviation assets, OAM's coastal
    interceptor vessels operate in offshore coastal waters to
    combat maritime smuggling and protect U.S. ports from acts of
    terrorism. These interceptor vessels are the most powerful
    vessels used in law enforcement and are an integral part of
    OAM's efforts to stop maritime smuggling.
        Further integrating security efforts, our Air and Marine
    Operations Center utilizes surveillance capabilities of Federal
    and international partners to provide air domain awareness for
    agents at the border and within the interior of the United
    States.
        Because of the continual support of Congress, OAM has been
    a significant contributor to CBP's progress in securing the
    border. OAM will continue to transform our aviation and
    maritime fleet to enhance our detection, interdiction
    capabilities, and work with our international and Federal
    partners to combat the risk that exists today and be prepared
    for tomorrow.
        Chairman Carper and distinguished Members, thank you for
    this opportunity to discuss our role and CBP's role in securing
    our borders. I look forward to answering your questions.
        Chairman Carper. General Alles, thank you so much for that
    testimony.
        I am tempted to say, the P-3, the mighty P-3, as my sons
    used to call it, is amazing. It was not a new airplane when I
    was starting to fly. It is amazing that they are still going.
    It served in Iraq, Gulf drug interdiction for years down in the
    Caribbean, and now in this role. It is really pretty amazing.
    And, I presume, cost effective. That is good. Mr. Dinkins.

    TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. DINKINS,\1\ EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
    HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
           ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. Dinkins. Good morning, Chairman Carper and
    distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today to discuss the significant
    contributions ICE has made over the past decade in securing the
    border and our investigative work to disrupt and dismantle
    transnational criminal organizations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dinkins appears in the Appendix
    on page 189.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over 26 years ago, I began my career in the Federal
    Government, and since that time, I have seen some watershed
    moments in border security, but as we all know, none more
    defining than
    9/11. At that moment in time, when the plane hit the World
    Trade Center at 8:46 a.m., border security changed forever. At
    that moment in time, I was a Supervisory Special Agent with
    U.S. Customs in Detroit, Michigan. My office sat just blocks
    away from the U.S.-Canadian border and there was a complete new
    urgency to securing our Northern border as well as our Southern
    border.
        Since that time, and with the creation of the Department of
    Homeland Security, we have made great strides and realized
    considerable enforcement achievements. For example, over the
    past 3 years, ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), has
    achieved a record number of criminal arrests, with an increase
    of nearly 25 percent in fiscal year 2012 over fiscal year 2010.
        As the Department's principal investigative agency, and as
    Customs and Border Protection's investigative arm, ICE Homeland
    Security Investigations has deployed nearly 50 percent of our
    resources to the Northern and Southern border, with the
    remaining resources strategically placed along our coastal
    borders and near ports of entry throughout the United States.
    In addition, we have special agents assigned to 75 offices in
    48 countries around the globe.
        This global footprint is imperative to address the entire
    criminal continuum of cross-border crimes that we face in
    today's global society. This includes at the border where
    criminal organizations, as you have heard, seek to smuggle
    people, contraband, and money into and out of the United
    States--as well as throughout the United States where the
    criminal organizations distribute their contraband and earn
    significant profits--and then, finally, internationally, where
    many of the criminal organizations base their command and
    control structures.
        In 2006, we made a great step forward, as you had mentioned
    in your remarks, with establishing the first Border Enforcement
    Security Task Force (BEST). Today, we have 35 BESTs located
    across 16 States and in Puerto Rico which leverage over 765
    Federal, State, local, Tribal, and international law
    enforcement officers representing over 100 different agencies.
        To assist in addressing the threats abroad, we also created
    Transnational Criminal Investigative Units (TCIUs), which are
    bilateral, multi-disciplined investigative units comprised of
    vetted international law enforcement partners. Currently, we
    have 12 units operating in 10 countries that are dedicated to
    investigating the foreign-based criminal organizations who
    threaten our Nation.
        In an effort to prioritize our investigations, with the
    increased resources that we have been granted over the last few
    years, ICE Homeland Security Investigations launched the
    Significant Case Review Process (SCR), in fiscal year 2011.
    This process focuses our investigative resources to disrupt and
    dismantle the most prolific criminal organizations. As a result
    of our work, over 175 of the most dangerous individuals and
    transnational criminal organizations have been disrupted or
    completely dismantled. These are criminal organizations that,
    at one time, had the capacity to smuggle thousands of illegal
    aliens and immigrants, tons of drugs, launder millions of
    proceeds, and smuggle weapons into and out of the United
    States, but no more.
        This past year, ICE also developed the Illicit Pathways
    Attack Strategy (IPAS). IPAS is a whole government approach,
    both domestically and internationally, to address not only the
    most significant criminal organizations, but also the smuggling
    pathways, and the methods they use. They use these methods and
    pathways for a reason, and we take a whole government approach
    to identify what is the underlying reason they are utilizing
    and exploiting that pathway. Experience has shown that if we
    simply tried to disrupt criminal activity by focusing law
    enforcement efforts in one area, criminal organizations will
    quickly adapt and shift to another area or method. The goal of
    our criminal investigations is to not only stop the individual
    criminals, but also to disrupt and dismantle the entire
    criminal enterprise and do everything we can to mitigate and
    eliminate the vulnerabilities they seek to exploit.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. There is no
    question, as you mentioned, that we have collectively made
    great strides and progress in enhancing border security over
    the past decade, and it would be my pleasure to answer any
    questions.
        Chairman Carper. Mr. Dinkins, thanks for that testimony,
    and again to all of you for your testimonies and for joining us
    today.
        I am going to ask some questions and then kick it over to
    Senator McCain, Senator Tester, Senator Landrieu, Senator
    Ayotte, Senator Johnson. Welcome. We are glad you all are able
    to join us today.
        I am going to telegraph a pitch and then I am going to ask
    somebody, maybe Mr. Fisher, to go over and talk us through some
    of these charts. But one of the questions I am going to ask is,
    do you think the borders are more secure, yes or no? And I am
    going to ask, to the extent that this is still a work in
    progress, and while improvements have been made, what are the
    one or two additional critical things that we need to do? What
    do we need to do more of? What do we need to do less of? Just
    be very specific, if you will, on that. And then we will drill
    down from there.
        But why do we not start with the charts?\1\ Mr. Fisher,
    would you just walk us through this first chart? It looks a
    little bit like the U.S.-Mexican border.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The photo submitted by Mr. Fisher appears in the Appendix on
    page 185.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Chairman. Thank you. I will be happy to.
    And I will be succinct and as brief as possible. If you need
    further clarification, please stop me while I am explaining it.
        Chairman Carper. OK.
        Mr. Fisher. The first chart is, as you identified, the
    Southwest border. It is a comparative on apprehensions. So if
    you look at the very top, in the blue numbers are the
    apprehension numbers by sectors, and as you recall, the
    Southwest border is broken down into nine sectors. And so the
    blue numbers represent the apprehensions at the end of fiscal
    year 2012 corresponding to each one of those sectors.
        Below that, in the lower numbers in red are the
    apprehension numbers at a point in time of the highest
    apprehension in that corresponding sector. And as a reference,
    if you look just above the red number, you will see a black
    number, which is the year in which what we call the high-water
    mark was established. So, generally what we do is we compare
    apprehensions with the previous year. That is kind of one of
    the default metrics that we typically report, both in our
    Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures and
    others, and----
        Chairman Carper. So what you are saying is apprehensions
    are generally down along the border, down substantially
    compared to where they were how many years ago? A half-dozen?
    Twelve?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes. The earliest one recorded is in 1992 in
    San Diego.
        Chairman Carper. All right.
        Mr. Fisher. So from 1992 through, it looks like about 2005,
    during that period of time, the Border Patrol historically was
    averaging millions of apprehensions per year.
        Chairman Carper. OK.
        Mr. Fisher. And so what we look at now in the comparative
    in 2012, in each one of our sectors, we are seeing continued
    decreased activity level, to include apprehensions.
        Chairman Carper. Yes. One could argue the reason why the
    apprehensions are going down is because we are not as effective
    in apprehending people. But having been there with Senator
    McCain and others, actually, we are a whole lot better at doing
    the job. They are far more effective on the ground, in the air,
    in the water. So it is sort of counterintuitive that we would
    use apprehensions. I think we struggle with this as a metric--
    that is the way we are going to measure progress and making the
    border more secure. How do you respond to that? Why is this one
    of the key measures for us to use? I know there are others, but
    why is this one of the key measures to use?
        Mr. Fisher. Right, and Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. As a
    matter of fact, if we just talk about apprehensions, I think it
    is misleading, because whether it goes up or it goes down, one
    could make the case that we are doing a better job. And that
    was about 3 years ago, we looked at apprehensions only as the
    start of metrics that we would try to describe the State at the
    border at any given point in time.
        What apprehensions does give us, and the reason why we like
    using them and have historically used them, is because it is a
    solid number. Those represent people that we have apprehended.
    So we can show you their biometrics. We can tell you who they
    are. We can give a whole host of demographics, where they were
    from. And so we are very confident about that number.
        But it just does not tell the whole story in terms of what
    is happening. It is a good starting spot, but not the end.
        Chairman Carper. Good. And as time goes by, do we have the
    ability, as we apprehend people, to know if they are being
    apprehended for the second, third, fourth time? Do we have the
    ability to do that with some certainty?
        Mr. Fisher. We do, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. And what are we seeing in terms of those
    numbers as a percentage of those that are being apprehended?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, as a percentage, there are less people
    that are being apprehended multiple times.
        Chairman Carper. OK.
        Mr. Fisher. So as a general statement, we can do that, and
    we can do that through their fingerprint identification number,
    which is a unique identifier based on biometrics. We are able
    to do a lot more analytical work in terms of who these people
    are, where they are showing up, either at the ports of entry,
    between the ports of entry, and we can study that over time,
    not just the individuals, but it helps inform our agents in
    terms of the networks that are operating these smuggling routes
    and it gives us a lot of information about their capabilities
    and their vulnerabilities.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Good. Do you have anything else
    you want to say on this chart before we look at some of the
    photos?
        Mr. Fisher. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Can somebody help us with the charts,
    please. Thank you. And I see some photos.\1\ A picture is worth
    a thousand words. What do we have here? Can we put that one up?
    Very good. Just put it up on the end, if you would. Thanks a
    lot. And what are we looking at here?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The photo submitted by Mr. Fisher appears in the Appendix on
    page 186.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Fisher. This is a before and after photo of an area
    within the Tucson sector in the State of Arizona. We have, over
    the last few years captured, and we have asked the field to
    send us, literally hundreds of photos which help us understand,
    not just within our headquarters, but certainly those that,
    unlike yourself, would not have the opportunity to go to the
    border or perhaps have not been to the border recently, in the
    late 1990s or early 2000s.
        And the picture up top was taken in 2006. As you can see,
    there is a lot of debris. Typically, what was happening, you
    would have thousands of people on any given shift going across
    the desert. In some areas, it took them hours. In some areas,
    it took them days to get from the point of entry across the
    border to either a stash house or into a vehicle. And along the
    way, in a typical area like this, would be what we call a load-
    out area. So as they were getting ready to transition into a
    vehicle, they would dump a lot of either old clothes and water
    bottles, things that they would take during their trip, and
    just leave it in the desert and continue on.
        The lower picture basically is a depiction of the same area
    as of present, whenever that photo was taken, which I assume
    was probably within the last year or so.
        Chairman Carper. A member of my staff said, with tongue in
    cheek, maybe they are just better recyclers now and we have
    these recycling containers and folks are being better human
    beings. That is not true, though, is it?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, that is certainly an argument, but then I
    would be able to show you what the Border Patrol agents are
    tracking each shift in terms of how many people are actually
    going through there, and they are getting very good in terms of
    individuals utilizing technology and their own innate skills in
    tracking, being able to--not a complete science, but be able to
    depict levels of traffic and people that are coming through
    areas like this.
        Chairman Carper. OK. All right. Can we look at the next
    chart,\2\ please? Would you describe it for us?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The photo submitted by Mr. Fisher appears in the Appendix on
    page 187.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Fisher. Certainly. This is just a depiction of before
    and after in terms of the type of technology that we would
    utilize along the border. To the left, you see an old
    generation night vision. I was mentioning to the General before
    the hearing, I said, it looks like one of the AMPBS 7-Bravo
    night vision equipments that, when I was a young agent working
    in the Arizona area, was given from the military. And back
    then, being able to see three feet in front of you with ambient
    light was a big deal, because absent that, we did not have any
    ability to do that. But then you fast forward and the type of
    technology that is available to the agents today, both in terms
    of their ability to see further and with more clarity, helps
    them really differentiate the types of threats that they are
    seeing out there in the desert. So this depiction just captures
    one piece of technology over the course of the last few years
    that has really enhanced our ability to protect this country.
        Chairman Carper. That is pretty dramatic. One more
    chart,\1\ and then I will yield to Senator McCain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The photo submitted by Mr. Fisher appears in the Appendix on
    page 188.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Fisher. Again, this is a snapshot, a before and after
    picture, and if memory serves, this is the Douglas area within
    Tucson sector. The top photo depicts a section of the border
    many years ago. We referred to it--appropriately, perhaps,
    looking at the photograph--as the ditch. And the picture below
    it is the same area with a level of infrastructure. The
    infrastructure includes primary fence. It includes an all-
    weather road, which allows the Border Patrol agents access
    laterally from one area to the other to respond to different
    threats. You will see a secondary fence and then in the
    background you will see some integrated fixed towers that
    provide the Border Patrol agents advance information in terms
    of on the approach of anybody seeking entry, either over or
    through the primary fence.
        And one interesting piece when you just look at this type
    of technology, what it does for us, it frees up the amount of
    Border Patrol agents that, absent that type of technology and
    infrastructure, would require a lot more Border Patrol agents
    on every shift to patrol those areas.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Well, thank you for that
    testimony. Thanks for sharing these photographs with all of us.
    Senator McCain.
        Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    witnesses.
        Mr. Fisher, I agree with you. I think all of us are in
    agreement. I have been down on the border for the last 30 years
    and there have been significant improvements, but we really do
    not know how significant they are. As you said, you cannot rely
    on apprehensions as the only measurement. But the fact is, we
    have no measurements. We have no measurements now.
        Let me read to you a quote from the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) report of last December. Quote,
    ``Border Patrol is developing key elements of its 2012-2016
    strategic plan needed to define border security and the
    resources necessary to achieve it, but has not identified
    milestones and timeframes for developing and implementing
    performance goals and measures in accordance with standard
    practices in program management. Border Patrol officials stated
    that performance goals and measures are in development for
    assessing the progress of agency efforts to secure the border
    between the ports of entry, and since fiscal year 2011, DHS has
    used the number of apprehensions on the Southwest border as an
    interim goal and measure. However, as GAO previously testified,
    this interim measure does not inform program results and,
    therefore, limits DHS and congressional oversight and
    accountability.''
        My question to you is, I agree with you that apprehensions
    are not the only measurement, but we have no other measurement
    right now. In fact, incredibly, in testimony before the House,
    Mr. Borkowski told Republican Representative Candice Miller,
    quote, ``I do not believe that we intend that the Border
    Conditions Index (BCI) will be a tool for the measurement that
    you are suggesting.''
        When are we going to have these measurements of
    effectiveness as the Government Accountability Office says that
    we need, because if you do not believe that apprehensions are
    the answer, then what is the answer that we have right now at
    our disposal in order for Congress to make a judgment?
        Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Senator. I will list two things in
    particular. The first thing is what we call the effectiveness
    ratio. At the end of the day, one of the things that is really
    important to us is not just the apprehensions. We want to know,
    to the extent that we are able through technology and agent
    observations, we want to know how many people come across the
    border, and of that number, how many people do we either
    apprehend or turn back. That allows us to understand flow----
        Senator McCain. So have you developed the metrics and the
    standards or not?
        Mr. Fisher. We have, sir.
        Senator McCain. You have?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Senator McCain. You have?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Senator McCain. And we are using them?
        Mr. Fisher. We are at the tactical and the strategic level
    trying to understand where it makes sense to capture that,
    because not in all areas----
        Senator McCain. I am not asking where it makes sense. What
    can I, what can the Members of this Committee have as a basis
    to determine the level of border security?
        Mr. Fisher. Well, one of the things that we are doing and
    rolling up at the strategic level is----
        Senator McCain. Are you sharing that with Congress?
        Mr. Fisher. We are just starting to, sir.
        Senator McCain. Oh, you are starting to.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Senator McCain. OK. Well, that is----
        Mr. Fisher. This has been an evolution over----
        Senator McCain. That is good to know.
        Mr. Fisher. Since Rebecca Gambler's report in GAO, this was
    something since that report and during their study, things that
    we have been working within the headquarters and in the field,
    quite frankly, on doing better.
        Senator McCain. That is fine, that you are doing that. You
    are not informing Congress. This Member has certainly not been
    informed. Certainly no Member of this Committee has been
    informed, that I know of. And we have to make judgments,
    particularly since we have pending an incredibly important
    piece of legislation before the Congress of the United States.
    I hope that you can get that information. I hope you can
    establish those metrics. And I would be more than happy to hear
    from the Government Accountability Office that you have done
    so. As short a time ago as last week when I talked to them,
    that has not happened.
        Mr. Fisher. Well, it is in the final stages of development,
    Senator. I can tell you that.
        Senator McCain. Well, it is certainly gratifying to know,
    because that is certainly not what was testified before the
    House by Mr. Borkowski, whoever he is. In fact, I think the
    Arizona Republic had a very interesting article, I mean
    editorial, that basically we do not have the metrics and we
    need the metrics and we need them very badly if we are going to
    consider overall immigration reform. And when the Secretary of
    Homeland Security says, well, we do not need a trigger, that
    gives us a degree of skepticism as to how forthcoming we are
    going to be.
        Apprehensions are up this year around the border, right?
        Mr. Fisher. Approximately 13 percent compared to last year,
    sir.
        Senator McCain. Thirteen percent up. That may have
    something to do with an improving economy and a perception
    south of the border of two things, one, that there is a job
    market, and two, that sequestration is having an effect on your
    operations, and that is my next question. Is sequestration
    harming to some degree your ability to carry out your assigned
    duties?
        Mr. Fisher. It is, sir, in some degree, yes.
        Senator McCain. Mr. Dinkins.
        Mr. Dinkins. Absolutely.
        Senator McCain. It would be helpful if we could get from
    you for the record the specific areas where your ability to
    carry out the border security mission has been impaired,
    because, obviously, that is of incredible importance and
    significance.
        Mr. Dinkins, on March 7, I sent a letter to Secretary
    Napolitano asking about what was reported to be 3,000 detainees
    who were released from ICE detention facilities around the
    country. I have received no answer. Can you tell me how many
    were released?
        Mr. Dinkins. Sir, I cannot tell you because it is outside
    of my chain of command and so forth. I am over the
    investigations portfolio and not the detention or removal----
        Senator McCain. Whose jurisdiction does that fall under?
        Mr. Dinkins. That would be my counterparts. So, within ICE,
    we have the Director and Deputy Director; and then myself who
    is over Homeland Security Investigations; and Gary Mead, who is
    actually----
        Senator McCain. So you do not know the answer to the
    question?
        Mr. Dinkins. I do not know the answer, sir.
        Senator McCain. General Alles, you are familiar with VADER
    radar.
        Mr. Alles. Yes, sir.
        Senator McCain. You have seen it in operation in Iraq.
        Mr. Alles. Yes. I have seen it in operation in Arizona. I
    am familiar with some of its Department of Defense (DOD)----
        Senator McCain. I have seen it in operation in Iraq. It
    seems to me that this is an incredible technology tool. Do we
    have plans to acquire more of that?
        Mr. Alles. Sir, currently, in the current appropriation
    bill, there is money for two more systems. We do have plans to
    get two more. We would like to get to an objective of six of
    those systems.
        Senator McCain. Would you supply for the record what is
    necessary to have VADER coverage for the border?
        Mr. Alles. For the entire border, sir?
        Senator McCain. For the entire border.
        Mr. Alles. I would have to calculate it and get back to
    you.
        Senator McCain. That is why I said, would you submit for
    the record.
        Mr. Alles. All right, sir.
        Senator McCain. Now, what is preventing the use of UAVs
    along the Southern border to be used in high-traffic areas 24
    hours a day?
        Mr. Alles. Part of that, as all things, is funding, sir. We
    need to do some things inside of my organization, Air and
    Marine, to get more operational utility out of the systems. The
    other part of it, of course, is I have to have more VADER
    systems. What I have right now is a lone system from the Army.
        Senator McCain. Given your experience and background, do
    you not believe that VADER plus drones could be absolute vital
    tools in attaining effective control of our border?
        Mr. Alles. I think, sir, it will help us characterize what
    the border looks like. The end piece of this is quite
    complicated and large, so actually getting full operational
    control of the border is difficult. This will help us see what
    the movement looks like in a more comprehensive way.
        Senator McCain. Well, seeing is the first step in getting
    border control, please. And I have seen both UAVs and VADER
    radar in action, including the Battle of Sadr City and other
    places, where it has been extremely effective. Detection is the
    first step that we need. So would you supply for the record the
    requirements that would be necessary for VADER and UAV, VADER
    across the border and UAVs that would be necessary in high-
    traffic areas.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me 1 second, in
    Arizona today, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)
    will say that there are guides sitting on mountaintops in
    Arizona guiding the drug smugglers up all the way from the
    border up to Phoenix, where it is distributed through most of
    the country. Do you agree with that assessment? Mr. Fisher, or
    whoever wants----
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator. I am aware of those networks and
    their capabilities in Arizona.
        Senator McCain. And the cost of an ounce of cocaine has not
    gone up a dollar in the last 5 years. That is the ultimate
    indicator of whether we are restricting the flow of drugs or
    not, and that is part of the equation as far as border security
    is concerned that I think we need to pay a lot more attention
    to.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your interest
    and involvement and your visit to the border out of your very
    busy schedule. We appreciate your understanding and
    appreciation of the challenge that we face in the Southwest.
    And I thank the witnesses.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you for letting me come down and for
    spending that much time with me.
        The point that Senator McCain is making here is apparent to
    all of us. If we want to be able to say that we have a more
    secure border, how do we measure that and be able to say not
    just that we are apprehending fewer people, that it means we
    have a more secure border? That is counterintuitive. So it is
    one of a number of measures we can use, but it cannot be the
    only one.
        I said this to some folks down in Arizona when I was there.
    I said, maybe if we had the ability to actually quantify the
    number of folks who are trying to get across the border. We
    will say it is 100. The number that go back, turn-backs, we
    will say maybe it is 10. Then to be able to measure, as we do,
    the number that are detained when they come across, and then do
    a little bit of arithmetic--as Bill Clinton would say, a little
    arithmetic--and figure out how many came across but got away.
        What I hope we can do is work toward a system. Not just
    folks on the ground. Not just in the air. Not just ground
    support radar. Not just intelligence. But an approach--this is
    an oversimplification--but an approach that actually enables us
    to measure that so that we can say with some certainty that the
    borders are more secure. Not just we have the pictures you are
    showing, and they are pretty compelling, but to actually have
    the numbers to back that up. All right. That is an
    oversimplification, but I think that is where we need to go.
    And with the kind of technology that Senator McCain is talking
    about, maybe we can get there. Senator Tester.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER

        Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank all the folks who testified for their testimony.
        Since before 9/11, I have been aware--a change of focus to
    the Northern border now for a second. Since before 9/11, I have
    been aware of opportunities for smuggling drugs across the
    Northern border with low-flying aircraft. I have long thought
    that deployment of military-grade radar would be very positive
    along the Northern border. I was encouraged--to intercept the
    low-flying aircraft.
        I was encouraged that DHS entered into an agreement with
    the Canadian Government in 2011 to begin receiving Canadian
    radar feeds. Can you provide me, and whoever, it may be you,
    Mr. Alles, but can you provide me an update on how this
    initiative is going, the effectiveness of those feeds as far as
    your ability to determine what is going on, on the Northern
    border?
        Mr. Alles. Those feeds are fully integrated now into our
    Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside, California, and
    those are combined with the hundreds of Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) radar feeds we receive from across the
    United States and military radar feeds. So those are
    integrated. They very much give us a much better picture of
    what the air flow looks like across the Canadian border. So, it
    has been a great advantage to us in terms of air security, sir.
        Senator Tester. And is that air flow able to be monitored
    24/7?
        Mr. Alles. Yes, sir. That is able to be monitored 24/7. I
    should qualify. In the low-altitude arena, you are going to
    have areas that have gaps.
        Senator Tester. How low is low?
        Mr. Alles. Low would be something down 5,000, 2,000, 1,000
    feet.
        Senator Tester. OK. So that is not--to be honest with you,
    some of the area where there are mountains, that is low, but
    truthfully, a lot of the area that I am talking about, the
    rising elevation of the ground is not much. So you can be right
    on the deck with a 182 Cessna, for example.
        So the question becomes, from your analysis, are we still
    talking about anything under 500 feet we cannot determine?
        Mr. Alles. If they are at low altitude, sir, we are going
    to have a difficult time picking them out.
        Senator Tester. OK. So we are not where we need to be, are
    we?
        Mr. Alles. Well, I think in terms of risk reduction, we
    certainly have reduced the risk to ourselves on the Northern
    border by integrating the feeds that we currently have. Nowhere
    across the United States do we have coverage that probably
    extends all the way down to the ground.
        Senator Tester. OK. Well, I mean, I just think that--and I
    will say this again--I hope that there are opportunities to
    expand this, whether it is done through cooperative agreements
    with the Canadian Government or whether it is done by
    ourselves. But the bottom line is that--and I live 75 miles
    from that border on very flat ground that you could probably
    flood irrigate without moving much dirt, to be honest with you.
    That is how flat it is. And these planes can come across the
    border. They can land in these little airports, put in a credit
    card, fill up their plane, and they can go anywhere they want,
    and that is a concern to me.
        If it is a concern to me, I hope it is a concern to you,
    and I hope there are proposals to be put forth to deal with
    that situation, whether we are talking about drugs or weapons
    of mass destruction, whatever we might be talking about. So I
    just put that forth as an opportunity to move forward in a
    positive way.
        Mr. Dinkins or maybe Mr. Fisher, or maybe both, or Mr.
    McAleenan, maybe all of you, on a recent trip to the Northern
    border, I spoke with some Customs and Border Protection agents
    who were frustrated by some jurisdictional issues with the
    folks at ICE. In one case, the CBP had actionable intelligence
    to make a number of arrests and was ready to move forward, but
    ultimately they had to defer to ICE because the matter was
    qualified as an interior enforcement. At the end of the day, as
    we talk about immigration reform here--at the end of the day,
    nothing was done, and the folks who could have been arrested
    and sent back to their country because of being unpapered were
    not.
        Can you clarify how CBP and ICE are currently handling
    overlapping jurisdictions or even gaps in regard to the arrests
    of undocumented individuals?
        Mr. Fisher. I would be happy to, Senator. In a couple of
    locations we are getting better at that. I will tell you--a
    place like South Texas--we, along with ICE and law enforcement
    partners are sitting down in advance of an operation and doing
    what is called joint targeting.
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Mr. Fisher. We will bring all the intelligence components
    in and all the law enforcement components, including the U.S.
    Attorney, and we will understand better about those networks
    and those organizations than we ever would individually. And
    then we are identifying what is the best enforcement approach.
    In some cases, it is going to be an investigation. In some
    cases, it is going to be an interdiction. And we need to get
    better at that as we move forward.
        Senator Tester. But what about the issue--and you can jump
    in if you would like, Mr. Dinkins--what about the issue of, and
    I do not remember what the mile is, whether it is 50 miles or
    100 miles or 75 or something, but what about the issue where
    there is actionable intelligence to move forward. ICE does not
    have the manpower to deal with it and Customs and Border
    Protection is saying, ``That is not your jurisdiction. I do not
    want you fooling around with this.''
        What are we doing with that, because, quite frankly, if
    that is happening with any sort of--I mean, it is a problem and
    we have to fix it. And so what are we doing, agency to agency?
    The President always talks about, we have to quit working in
    silos, and I agree, we need to work more as a team. What are
    you doing when there is a problem like that? Is there an
    opportunity for agents to make you aware of it, or the
    supervisors aware of it, and are the supervisors instructed to,
    you know what, if there is actionable intelligence, go after it
    and do it. If it is out of our gourd, get hold of ICE and tell
    them we are doing it, or vice-versa?
        Mr. Dinkins. Senator, I can tell you, Mr. Fisher and I have
    established some very good communications all the way down to
    the field level. So an incident like you just mentioned----
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Dinkins [continuing]. I have not heard about in, quite
    frankly, years.
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Mr. Dinkins. So I am not sure if they are referring back
    to, maybe, the old days or recent----
        Senator Tester. No. I am aware of the situation. I am aware
    of the facility that was being built and it is relatively
    recent. It is within the last year.
        Mr. Dinkins. OK. But I will say that--we have
    communications not only at the field level, between the chief
    and the special agent in charge, but also, we have an advisory
    group that comes together to make sure that those issues do not
    come about. Because, from an ICE perspective, if I do not have
    the agents and resources to do it, we are not telling people
    not to do it. What we are asking for--is that we are making
    sure we are coordinating, and we are having a seamless
    communication between what gets done.
        Senator Tester. OK, and I appreciate that. I think that, in
    the end, when it comes to these things--and it was not a
    Customs and Border Protection issue because it was far enough
    away from the border where they could say, ``No, it is not my
    job.'' But on the other side of the coin, if ICE cannot do it,
    and there are other issues with manpower and money with ICE,
    because Montana is a big State and we have a 550-mile border
    with Canada in Montana alone, there has to be some ability--and
    I guess this is a question for the folks on the ground, whether
    they are working in ICE or whether they are working in CBP--to
    be able to say, look, this is what is going on and we are not
    doing anything about it without being reprimanded. Is that
    there?
        Mr. Fisher. Sir, I will tell you that I have instructed all
    the field commanders and the supervisors that make those day-
    to-day judgments and decisions about deployments and managing
    risk, and ultimately, I leave it up to them in terms of being
    able to respond----
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Mr. Fisher [continuing]. And Border Patrol agents generally
    will not say, ``It is not my job.'' What they will do is try to
    understand what their priority mission is, and without
    degrading the priority mission and border protection, in cases,
    we will be able to respond.
        Senator Tester. Super.
        Mr. Fisher. In other cases, we will not, sir.
        Senator Tester. And I just appreciate that, and I would
    just say--and my time is long gone, but I would just say that
    this really is an issue, from my perspective, that deals with
    leadership, and if you guys make it known to your leaders, mid-
    level management folks, that this is important to you, my guess
    is that it will work out a lot better.
        I am concerned about sequester, too, and overtime, and I
    have several other questions I want to introduce for the
    record.
        Once again, thank you guys for your service. I very much
    appreciate it. We have more work to do, but I think you guys
    are fully capable of meeting our needs. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you, Senator Tester.
        Senator Ayotte, you are next, and if Senator Landrieu does
    not show up or Senator Johnson does not return, Senator
    Baldwin, you are right after Senator Ayotte. Thanks for joining
    us. Senator Ayotte.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE

        Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the witnesses for what you do to protect
    our country. We really appreciate it.
        General Alles, I had a question for you. What is the
    current protocol for CBP to inspect cargo ships arriving at a
    seaport? The reason I raise it is because I understand right
    now in New Hampshire, and, obviously, we have a seaport in the
    Portsmouth area, that ships arriving during the night are being
    held at sea as CBP agents are unable to board them to inspect
    the cargo for hazardous materials as they would customarily do.
    So you get there at night, you wait, and they are not boarding
    until the morning.
        And one of the concerns I have and the concerns I have on
    the ground there is that this delay in inspecting the ships
    could create an unnecessary risk. And, obviously, if somebody
    has contraband on board or they even have people that should
    not be on board because they are there illegally, that gives
    them an opportunity to sneak off during the night, until the
    inspectors come in the morning.
        So can you help me understand what the policy is, why this
    is happening, and get your thoughts on it.
        Mr. McAleenan. Senator, that will be my area of
    responsibility.
        Senator Ayotte. OK. Sure.
        Mr. McAleenan. Thank you for the question. We have
    extensive protocols for arriving vessels into our seaports. In
    terms of the crew and passengers on board, we are aware of who
    they are up to 96 hours before arrival and will have vetted
    them through all of our targeting databases prior to arrival.
    We also have mechanisms to receive information on the cargo
    coming in on these vessels that has been addressed prior to
    arrival.
        I can look into this specific question in New Hampshire and
    get back to you. The hours of operation, generally, we have
    core hours and we have regular expectations for the vessels
    that call on our ports in terms of when we will be able to be
    there. If they are being held, that was probably an effort to
    ensure the security of the crew. As you noted, any potential
    contraband in cargo before it was offloaded.
        Senator Ayotte. I would appreciate your looking into this
    issue for me, because when I was over there visiting, what I
    heard is this is a change in policy, so it has not been done
    this way in the past. And that is why on the ground level, what
    I am hearing is a lot of concerns about it being done
    differently and a belief that it gives opportunity for criminal
    activity to flourish or to undermine what we are all trying to
    accomplish. So if you can followup with me, I would really
    appreciate that, so I can understand, because from the
    perspective on the ground, it is a change in policy of what has
    happened in the past.
        Now, obviously, if this is an issue of resources because of
    sequester or whatever the issue is, I just need to understand
    and what your thoughts are on it. So I appreciate the followup
    on that. Thank you.
        And also to followup, Senator Tester asked you about the
    Northern border, and so whomever is the most appropriate to
    answer this question, and I certainly appreciate the slides
    that we saw that focus very much on the Southern border and the
    challenges that we have there. My State, of course, borders 58
    miles with Canada, in addition to our seaport that we just
    talked about as a port of entry. And we also have a port of
    entry on the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport. So a lot of
    places that certainly we focus on in New Hampshire.
        Can you help me understand what the biggest threats are
    with respect to the security along the border with Canada?
    Particularly, I think about the border. We have a 58-mile
    border, but there are obviously other portions of the border
    that border Canada, and what are our challenges there?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, thank you for the question. In general
    terms, when we look at our borders and compare it North and
    South, one of the things that is different in terms of how we
    identify a general threat on the Northern border really stems
    from the fact that approximately 90 percent of the population
    in Canada lives within 100 air miles of the border. And
    differentiating that threat versus hundreds of people coming
    across the border to the South, we have to look at it a lot
    differently.
        One of the things that we do with our law enforcement
    counterparts in the region and with the Royal Canadian Mounted
    Police and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and others
    within Canada is we have over the years worked jointly in terms
    of the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs). They are
    called the IBETs. And what we do is we come together
    frequently. As a matter of fact, in many cases along the
    border, it is steady State operations, where we are constantly
    sharing information, bringing all of our resources together and
    trying to understand what the broader picture is in terms of
    threats in the region. And we have very good working
    relationships with our counterparts in Canada.
        And what we then try to establish is what are the emerging
    threats and what is the best way to approach those from a joint
    international standpoint, and then working with Jim and the
    investigators and trying to fulfill either intelligence gaps or
    identifying what additional resources that we may need to bring
    into the particular area at any given point in time.
        Senator Ayotte. So what are the biggest threats right now
    with respect to the Northern border?
        Mr. Dinkins. I think that goes back to, measuring border
    security, and I can tell you what we are seeing is continued
    persistence, interdictions and investigations; and what we find
    is the Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) are involved
    in the Northern border between Canada and the United States.
    Hydroponic marijuana continues to be persistent, and the
    laundering of those illegal proceeds from the United States
    back into Canada. We have often seen drug trafficking
    organizations, that predominately used to be involved in just
    smuggling cocaine, and marijuana into the United States, but
    now often engage with trafficking organizations from Canada
    that then route it to the United States, ultimately for
    distribution in Canada. And, there are intellectual property
    crimes, as well.
        So many of the same threats that we face as a Nation
    everywhere, to some different degree and extent are seen along
    the Northern border, depending on the type of situation.
        Senator Ayotte. Can you tell me, on the apprehension
    measure that you were all talking about, how has that changed
    on the Northern border? Where are we if you look at historical
    average on apprehensions? And so whatever metrics we are going
    to establish on the Southern border, presumably, those metrics
    would apply to the Northern border, as well, but can you tell
    me about the apprehension one that you mentioned earlier?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, over the years, there has been very
    little fluctuation in terms of apprehension numbers, and I
    think you hit it right. The metrics utilized on the Southwest
    border would not necessarily make sense in a Northern border
    construct.
        For instance, if you are looking at, as the Chairman
    indicated, effectiveness ratios, we want to know how many
    people came in and how many people did we apprehend or turn
    back. Well, that makes sense in areas where that threat has
    been established as high levels of activity. It would not
    necessarily, in my judgment, be a good value measure in areas
    where we do not see a lot of that type of activity. But
    nonetheless, there are metrics that we would need to establish
    to be able to baseline the extent to which our border is secure
    in those areas.
        For instance, it would be known and likely criminal
    activity that is coming in between the ports of entry and how,
    then, do we work as an international force to be able to
    disrupt and dismantle those networks along the way. That would
    make sense in an area in the Northeast, perhaps.
        Senator Ayotte. And I know that my time is up, but I
    appreciate your all being here and for your testimony. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks for those questions and for you
    being here.
        Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Senator Baldwin, good to see
    you, another State with a Canadian border, as I recall.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

        Senator Baldwin. Lake Superior, so international waters.
        Chairman Carper. There you go.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Coburn.
        I want to thank all of you for your service to our country
    and for being here today, and I hope that you will convey to
    your hard-working agents our indebtedness for what they do to
    focus on territorial integrity and our economic security, too.
        I thought I might be the only Senator who was deviating
    from the focus on the Southern border, but I guess all politics
    is local and so my questions actually focus on a couple of
    issues that are of particular concern to the people of the
    State of Wisconsin.
        We have a large manufacturing base in the State of
    Wisconsin and we have several major shipping ports in
    Milwaukee, Green Bay and Superior. And so I wanted to take this
    moment to inquire about the relevant Customs and Border
    Protection responsibilities in these areas. And if I do have
    time after that conversation, I do want to ask a question about
    potential effects of border surveillance on constitutional
    civil liberties of American citizens.
        But, first, manufacturing represents a large share of
    Wisconsin's economy and many jobs in my State are supported by
    manufacturing, and my constituents and I are very concerned
    about unfair trade practices, dumping practices by other
    countries, and particularly China. I have heard concerns about
    two techniques that are regularly used to avoid import tariffs,
    mislabeling goods and falsification of country of origin
    through transshipment.
        And so I wonder if you can address for me CBP's views on,
    first, how great of a problem are these and other such tariff
    evasion schemes? Second, what is CBP doing to detect these
    efforts and how effective have you been and how can you improve
    even more? And third, I recognize that the Department of
    Commerce and International Trade Commission play in this same
    arena, so I am curious to hear how CBP is integrating its
    efforts with those other key players to ensure full
    enforcement, such as real time information sharing.
        I think I will throw this out to you, Deputy Commissioner
    McAleenan, and then others can pitch in if you have other
    points to make.
        Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Senator. An important question,
    and really one of the critical responsibilities of CBP is to
    protect the trade and the U.S. businesses that rely on it.
        In terms of the problem of trade fraud and
    misclassification or mislabeling, that can be done for several
    reasons, as you noted, to avoid dumping and countervailing duty
    regulations, to just seek a lower charge on a duty, and to try
    to increase a market share. This is a problem that we are very
    focused on. As you noted, it is one that is interagency in
    nature. We partner very closely with ICE, and I will ask my
    colleague, Mr. Dinkins, to chime in on our joint efforts there,
    because we really reinvigorated our trade fraud efforts with
    the investigative partners.
        But in terms of what we do day to day at the ports of entry
    we rely a lot on our targeting systems, our advanced data and
    our ability to detect suspect trade practices and validate
    those through examination. We have what we call our compliance
    measurement efforts, which include verifying a sampling of
    trade from a variety of sources to make sure it is compliant,
    and compliance rates are very high nationally, but we maintain
    that effort to make sure we are not missing anything. And we
    also try to focus our examinations on those higher-risk source
    countries and higher-risk importers to take action.
        But I think we have had some significant successes in the
    past 2 years as we have built our efforts with ICE, and I think
    Mr. Dinkins can talk about the Intellectual Property Rights
    Center, which is really doing commercial fraud more broadly,
    and how we are coordinating with them.
        Mr. Dinkins. Yes, ma'am. And this is something, an area
    that over the last few years, especially with the economy the
    way that it has been and the struggles that we have had, to
    ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the U.S.
    businesses that are playing by the rules.
        I could go on and on, because we have done so much in the
    last 2 years, but I think that one measure that will tell you
    the level of seriousness that we are taking on this, not only
    from Customs and Border Protection but also from ICE Homeland
    Security Investigations--is that this past year, in fiscal year
    2012, we dedicated more resources and spent more time on
    criminal investigations in commercial fraud than we did any
    time in my 26-year career, which started with 16 of those 26
    years being with U.S. Customs. So as for investigative hours
    and resources--we have spent a lot of time.
        We are using our best practices and experience that we are
    getting from our criminal investigations, and sitting down with
    Kevin's folks in his Office of Trade to actually say, ``OK,
    well, what are the criminal organizations trying to do and what
    loopholes and vulnerabilities are they trying to exploit? ''
    Then we share that information so we can generate additional
    targets and so forth.
        One of the big cases is ``Honeygate,'' we called it. It
    involved honey coming out of China. We changed, really,
    collectively, between our two agencies, the way that industry
    operates to this day.
        Senator Baldwin. Tell me a little bit about your metrics.
    Obviously, you do not inspect 100 percent, so how do we know
    how we are doing?
        Mr. McAleenan. In this area, I mentioned our compliance
    measurement effort, which does do that random sampling of trade
    coming across, looks for any violations in that, whether it was
    a mislabeling issue, fraud issue, improper classification, and
    so forth. And so we know from those assessments that we have
    well over 95 percent compliance across all trade. And also,
    those assessments help inform areas that are of higher risk.
        The other key metric we utilize is the number of
    participants in our Trusted Trade Program, the Customs Trade
    Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT), and an interrelated
    smaller program for those very large high-volume importers that
    have accounting practices that they have aligned with our
    collection process, called the Importer Self-Assessment
    Program. The CTPAT now account for 55 percent of the total
    trade. These are companies that we have validated their supply
    chain. We are very familiar with their security measures. We
    are very familiar with how they interact with Customs and the
    trusted relationship they have with CBP.
        So I think those are the two key metrics that we use to
    assess our trade fraud efforts and how compliant the trade
    community is.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit two additional
    questions for the record, but I have run out of time.
        Chairman Carper. I will be happy to have you do that and
    ask our witnesses to respond promptly, if they would.
        Dr. Coburn has joined us. Please, Dr. Coburn.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN

        Senator Coburn. Well, I apologize for not being here for
    your opening testimony and the questions that were there.
        First of all, let me personally thank you for your service.
    You do not get a lot of kudos. You get a lot of complaints but
    not a lot of kudos, and I just want to formally recognize your
    service and dedication to what you do.
        And I may ask some questions that have been asked. If they
    have been asked, just tell me and we will stop.
        One of the things I have heard is since we have had the
    discussions ongoing on immigration reform, the attempts at
    border crossings have increased--non-border crossings have
    increased. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Fisher. I am sorry, Senator. Could you repeat that,
    please?
        Senator Coburn. Yes. Since the last 3 months, since we have
    had a discussion ongoing in Congress about immigration reform,
    the reports I have from some of my contacts have said that the
    number of attempted crossings has increased. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Fisher. This particular year, yes, sir. We have seen an
    increase in attempted entries between the ports of entry. We
    are actually up in terms of apprehensions about 13 percent. The
    reasons and modus behind that are varied, some of which is
    hearing sequestration, some of which is hearing immigration
    reform, and some of it is hearing they just want to come and be
    joined with their families. There is a whole host of reasons
    behind that, sir.
        Senator Coburn. And I know you have had a lot of questions
    on metrics, and according to the testimony that 90 percent is
    what you are looking at in terms of control. What happens to
    the other 10 percent? Who we are seeing crossing the border now
    illegally, what percentage is non-Mexican, and other-than-
    Mexican?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, I will answer the second one first. It
    is approximately 30 percent. So when you look at the
    individuals that we are apprehending, approximately 30 percent
    of those individuals are from a country other than Mexico.
        Chairman Carper. Say that percent again. What percent?
        Mr. Fisher. It is approximately 30 percent, sir. About one-
    third of individuals that we are apprehending this year are
    from a country other than Mexico.
        Senator Coburn. And of that 30 percent, what percentage are
    Latino but not Mexican? In other words, what percentage of
    people coming across the border are not from South America,
    indigent South Americans?
        Mr. Fisher. I do not have the exact number, Senator, but it
    would be very small. In other words, the vast majority of that
    30 percent are from three primary countries in Central America,
    Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
        Senator Coburn. Right. So will you get back to me on that
    number?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Senator Coburn. OK. Thank you.
        The other question I have for you, you all each know more
    about your area than any Member of Congress. You are
    responsible for it. The ins and outs. If you were given the
    flexibility under the sequester to manage your areas of
    responsibility by prioritizing what is most important down to
    what is least important, would any of you have any difficulty
    doing that?
        Mr. Fisher. No, Senator.
        Senator Coburn. Anybody else?
        Mr. Alles. No, sir. I think we are working through the
    issues.
        Senator Coburn. Right. But the point is, regardless of what
    we have said in the past, you are the key people. What is most
    important, what is second most important, what is third most
    important. If we were to give you that flexibility, would that
    not make your job easier with sequester?
        Mr. McAleenan. Yes, sir. I think, unequivocally. The one
    area that we should note, at the office level, much of our
    budgets are made up of salaries and expenses.
        Senator Coburn. Right.
        Mr. McAleenan. So the flexibility is kind of diminished
    just by the percentage and the composition of the budget.
        Senator Coburn. But as a whole, you actually could be more
    effective under this sequester if we gave you the flexibility
    to manage your operations the way people in the private sector
    get to manage theirs when they are held responsible for an
    outcome. You would agree with that?
        Mr. McAleenan. That is a fair statement, Senator.
        Mr. Alles. Yes, sir. I would agree, too.
        Senator Coburn. Nobody disagrees with that.
        How many of you are familiar with what the GAO has done
    over the last 4 years in terms of looking at duplication and
    combining all the reports the Inspector Generals (IGs) have
    done and looking at duplication and waste and lack of metrics?
    Have you all read that?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, I am generally aware of the effort,
    but I could not speak to it in any depth.
        Senator Coburn. Well, what I would suggest is you take
    those last three reports--they have now finished the entire
    Federal Government, each of your agencies are in there--and
    look at it. And what I would like for you to do is look at that
    and say, here is where we agree with them. Here is where we
    disagree. Here are the things we think they have made in terms
    of recommendations that are positive and we are going to act on
    it. Here are the things we think are a waste of our time. They
    may have some little savings, but it is not a good expenditure
    of dollars to go after those savings.
        If you all would do that for me, that actually puts a check
    for me back on GAO. They are not always right. They are pretty
    good, but they are not always right. So one of the things my
    staff and I get to learn is when we get feedback from you based
    on what their assessments are in your particular areas. And if
    you would do that for me, I think it would prove very
    beneficial for our Committee in terms of helping you.
        Our job, and I think Senator Carper has led exceptionally
    well on this, our job is to help you. It is not just to be
    critical. Our job is to say, what are our goals? Where is the
    money? How effectively are we doing it? And can we make any
    difference on this Committee in terms of streamlining, making
    you more efficient, and making you more effective?
        With that, I will submit some questions to the record that
    I would appreciate that you get back to me on. Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Let me ask some questions, and initially,
    I am just going to ask you to raise your hand or not. How many
    think the border is far more secure than it was a half-dozen
    years ago? Raise your hand. [All raising hands.]
        Far more secure. How many think that we can do a whole lot
    more to improve it--a whole lot more? [All raising hands.]
        OK. How many think that we can do a good deal more? [All
    raising hands.]
        That is different than a whole lot.
        Senator Coburn. What is the difference between a good deal
    and a whole lot?
        Chairman Carper. There is a difference. A whole lot is a
    whole lot.
        Senator Coburn and I were once at a hearing on the Finance
    Committee and we had before us a bunch of witnesses who were
    talking about deficit reduction, something that he and I care a
    lot about. One of the guys who was testifying was the former
    Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Blinder. He was Vice
    Chairman when Alan Greenspan was the Chairman, and he talked
    about health care costs as the 800-pound gorilla in the room on
    deficit reduction. Unless we get our arms around health care
    costs rising, we are never going to really do a good enough job
    on deficit reduction.
        I asked him in the Q and A, what do we need to do in order
    to get health care costs under control? And he said, I am not a
    health economist. I am not an expert on this. Here is my
    recommendation. Find out what works and do more of that. Find
    out what works and do more of that. And later on, I suggested,
    well, maybe find out what does not work and do less of that,
    and he said, yes.
        We need to find out what works, and it has led to the
    improvement that you all have shown us today and talked about
    today. We find out what works and what we need to do more of.
    We need to understand, as well, what does not work so well,
    what has marginal value, and maybe do a little bit less of that
    in the budget-constrained world.
        I am told that we now spend more money on Border Patrol
    and, I think, on the folks at Customs and Border Protection,
    than we spend as a government on the Federal Bureau of
    Investigations (FBI), Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement
    Agency (DEA), Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), all
    combined. It is a huge amount of money, a huge investment that
    we are making. And we need to make sure that we are getting our
    money's worth out of those forces on the ground. What can we do
    as force multipliers in the air, on the sea, in terms of
    intelligence? So here is what I want to ask.
        Going back to what Alan Blinder told us, find out what
    works, do more of that, what else do we need to do? These VADER
    systems that we talked about, we have one of them. It is on
    loan. DHS does not even own it. It is on loan by, I think not
    by the DOD, but I think maybe by the company that developed it.
    I am told they cost about $8 million apiece. Can somebody
    confirm that for us?
        Mr. Alles. That is roughly correct, sir, yes.
        Chairman Carper. And can they be used--just talk about the
    number of platforms they can be used on.
        Mr. Alles. Well, the only platform we have it integrated on
    right now is the Predator. We are looking at manned platforms
    that would give us more flexibility. We have not done that work
    yet. The Army actually is doing some work on that right now. We
    are going to piggyback on that work, because they are doing it
    on an aircraft that is similar in type to ours. So when they
    finish that, we will try to piggyback on that same work.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Well, if I were a bad guy trying to
    get through with, whether it was drugs or trying to get through
    with people, I would certainly try to find out what the drone
    schedule is and the days that you are up, the days that they
    are not. Try to find out which one the VADER is on and the ones
    that are not.
        And one of the lessons that I took back with me is we need
    to resource the drones so that they can fly almost throughout
    the week, 24/7.
        The second thing, we need to figure out how the C-206-- a
    smaller airplane, older airplane--how can that be used
    effectively in this effort? Can the VADER be mounted on a C-
    206? Does that make sense? Can a VADER or some other system be
    mounted on the lighter-than-air units that we have and we
    deploy in Afghanistan and other places along the border?
        Talk with us about which of those applications of
    technology actually make sense, could be cost effective, and
    enhance the effectiveness of the thousands and thousands of men
    and women that we have arrayed across our borders, from one end
    of the Mexican border to the other. General?
        Mr. Alles. So, from my standpoint on the VADER system, sir,
    as you noted, it is a lone system, so we would like to procure
    more of those systems and also integrate them on manned
    platforms.
        And then the other piece of this, too and I think you
    obviously saw the Cessna 206 when you were out there, is a low-
    cost platform. The actual sensor on it costs probably five
    times as much as the aircraft. But we are looking at putting
    more of those sensors on lower-cost airplanes because it gives
    us better efficiencies and helps us in terms of our flying hour
    program. So it is a money saver for us.
        Chairman Carper. Let us just drill down on that, the C-206.
    I did not ask the cost of the drones, the cost of acquiring and
    operating them; we will leave that to another day. But you
    mentioned the VADER mounted on the drone might be about $8
    million.
        Mr. Alles. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Carper. The system that the surveillance system is
    on, the C-206 aircraft----
        Mr. Alles. That was about a million-dollar ball that is on
    the aircraft.
        Chairman Carper. All right. And the cost of the aircraft?
        Mr. Alles. I would have to get back to you----
        Chairman Carper. Just roughly. Under a million?
        Mr. Alles. Maybe a hundred-thousand.
        Chairman Carper. It is peanuts compared to what we spend
    around here.
        Mr. Alles. Yes.
        Chairman Carper. How do we figure out how to use the 206 in
    a way that complements the use of the drones and the lighter-
    than-air?
        Mr. Alles. I think that also gets back to the operational
    integration piece, which is what we are really working on with
    VADER. That is the one we have to get right in the Arizona
    area. The Joint Field Command we have out there now is working
    very hard on that particular operational integration and
    starting to enjoy some success with it.
        Chairman Carper. All right. One of the things we have not
    talked about is intelligence, and I want to take maybe a minute
    on that. Before I do, you have over here Senator Landrieu, who
    chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee that deals with Homeland
    Security. This is the Committee of jurisdiction. We have a guy
    here who chairs Armed Services and has led that Committee,
    along with Senator McCain, for a long time. You have literally
    in this Committee, those who serve on this Committee and in
    other areas, some of the folks who can actually make sure that
    the additional resources that are needed can be provided.
        I do not know that we are ever going to get to that simple
    example that I cited earlier, where you figure out, do we have
    100 people approaching the border? Yes. Be able to say, yes,
    with some certainty, we do. Did 10 of them turn back? To have
    some certainty, yes, we can do that. We know how many people we
    apprehend out of that 100. And if it is 80, then it means 10
    got away. My real question is, is it a fool's errand to think
    that we can develop the technology, combine that with our
    ground resources, a multi-layered effort in technology, and
    actually be able to make those kinds of calculations? I think
    that is the metric that we would all say, I believe in that.
        And the other stuff that I think the Department is working
    on that I know just a little bit about--we talked about it here
    today and I have talked about it with my staff--I am not sure
    that is going to convince anybody that the border is really
    more secure.
        So is it a fool's errand to think that we can actually put
    together this multi-layered technology, human resources and so
    forth on the ground, in the air, lighter-than-air, different
    aircraft, different platforms, different kinds of sensors? Is
    it just not realistic, or is it realistic?
        Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, it is realistic, and I think you have
    hit it right on the head. You are on the right track and we
    would love to work with you and your staff as we get smarter
    about what we are learning about the technology and what that
    gives us in terms of being able to report out those specific
    variables that you are talking about.
        Chairman Carper. Anybody else before I yield to Senator
    Levin?
        Mr. Alles. I was just going to make a comment, sir. I
    think, as Chief Fisher mentioned before, part of this, though,
    we are going to want to use the technology we have--VADER is an
    example, synthetic aperture radars or links are an example to
    help us characterize and decide where the investment makes
    sense.
        Chairman Carper. Yes.
        Mr. Alles. So to think that we are going to do it along the
    entire link, I mean, it would be fantastically expensive. So I
    think that would help us. I think that is an area we look at,
    as we talked before, about where it makes sense threat-wise.
        Chairman Carper. Good. As my dad always said, use some
    common sense and we will try to do that here.
        And I want to say again to Senator Levin, my heartfelt
    thanks for not just the great hospitality that you extended to
    me when I was up in Michigan along the Canadian border, but
    just to share your expertise and insights with me. It was a
    terrific visit. I really appreciate it.
        Senator Levin. Well, we appreciate your taking the time to
    come to the border with Canada, which is an amazing border in a
    lot of ways, and some of those ways you were able to personally
    witness, and we are just grateful that you would take the time
    to get kind of a hands-on experience of our borders, whatever
    borders there are.
        I want to just focus on the Northern border issue. This is
    what the GAO said in their report. A few years back, a number
    of us asked the GAO to report on border security, and this is
    some of what they said in their report. Historically, the
    United States has focused attention and resources primarily on
    the U.S. border with Mexico, which continues to experience
    significantly higher levels of drug trafficking and illegal
    immigration than the U.S.-Canadian border. However, the GAO
    says, the DHS reports that the terrorist threat on the Northern
    border is higher given the large expanse of area with limited
    law enforcement coverage. There is also a great deal of trade
    and travel across this border. While legal trade is
    predominant, DHS reports networks of illicit criminal activity
    and smuggling of drugs, currency, people, and weapons between
    the two countries.
        Now, there is a huge gap in terms of our resources that are
    allocated to the Northern border versus the Southwest border.
    There was growth, in the last 10 years, in the number of Border
    Patrol agents, which nearly doubled from 10,000 to 21,000--but
    that growth was concentrated at the Southwest border where
    almost all of the added agents were sent. So the added agents,
    10,600 went to the Southwest border.
        Now, there is a huge disparity there. We have tried to get
    into this at times. Despite the fact that the terrorist threat
    is greater at the Northern border than it is at the Southwest
    border, nonetheless, we see this huge gap in terms of
    resources, both the ones that began, were there before 2004,
    and the ones that have been added since.
        So, Mr. McAleenan, let me ask you, why is this? Given what
    the findings of DHS have been, that the terrorist threat is
    greater on the Northern border, the amount of trade is far
    greater--Canada is our No. 1 trading partner, and that means
    the risk to that trade is greater because there is more trade--
    why this huge disparity? Why does it continue? In fact, why
    does it grow?
        Mr. McAleenan. Senator, thank you. I will let Chief Fisher
    speak to the significant percentage growth in Border Patrol
    agents on the Northern border in the past decade, but speaking
    for the ports of entry and the Office of Field Operations, you
    are correct. The encounters with terrorist watch listed
    individuals are higher on the Northern border than on the
    Southern border, but we are very focused on that threat. And
    our partnership with Canada has changed dramatically in the
    last 10 years, both in terms of our intelligence and
    information sharing, our benchmarking and our targeting
    approaches, and a whole series of programs in terms of joint
    Integrated Border Enforcement Teams that we participate on. We
    are co-located, working together. This is a serious focus for
    us, and I do not think at the ports of entry, for sure, the
    resource levels are in any way diminishing our ability to
    address our anti-terrorism mission.
        Senator Levin. OK. Mr. Fisher.
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, we had approximately 300 Border Patrol
    agents along the 4,000 miles in the Northern border prior to
    2011. We are at about 2,212 Border Patrol agents across that
    border. We maintain that level of staffing as our mandatory
    minimum staffing levels. And as Mr. McAleenan mentioned, our
    cooperation with Mexico, or, I beg your pardon, with Canada,
    has increased over the years, both in terms of our enforcement
    and intelligence sharing.
        But I will tell you, if we do have any specific
    intelligence on whatever that threat is which increases our
    capability between the ports of entry to respond accordingly to
    that threat, we will move Border Patrol agents from anywhere
    along the United States borders, whether it is North or South,
    to be able to mitigate and minimize the impact and risk that
    the threat may pose to this country.
        Senator Levin. So we rely basically on better intelligence
    cooperation between ourselves and Canada?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, that is correct, not exclusively, but
    that is certainly a key indicator for us to be able to identify
    those threats, emerging threats, that may be coming toward our
    borders.
        Senator Levin. And we have better intelligence cooperation
    with Canada than we do with Mexico?
        Mr. Fisher. I would not necessarily qualify it as better.
    There are different programs that are set up independent of
    what our relationships are with those countries, things that
    are based on treaties, things that are based on what we can or
    cannot share. But I will tell you, what we do on the Northern
    border with Canada, although we may not do it in the same
    manner, we would certainly do that with our partners in Mexico,
    as well.
        Mr. Alles. Senator, I would just make the comment from my
    standpoint on the air side, we have a substantial air presence,
    but most of what I see security-wise up there really falls in
    our cooperation with ICE in terms of intelligence development,
    case development, and really targeted enforcement to provide
    security.
        Senator Levin. There are entry points. There are walking
    paths. There are boats. We have lakes up there that are huge
    where there is boating going on all the time. It seems to me
    that it is a much easier border to cross illegally than the
    Mexican border. We are building a fence where we have, what,
    seven or eight times as many agents there as we do on the
    Northern border. To say that the Northern border is porous is
    to exaggerate. The porosity, it is not porous, it is
    nonexistent in places. There are hills and mountains right
    along the border where people just walk across and back without
    any awareness of it.
        And what the GAO has found, and I think what the DHS has
    acknowledged, is that this border is a source of a greater
    terrorist threat than the Mexican border. It seems to me that
    this should be considered the No. 1 problem we have, more than
    illegal immigration, which we are acting on in so many other
    ways.
        My time is up. I do have a question that I will submit for
    the record, Mr. Chairman, about the so-called Administratively
    Uncontrolled Overtime (AUO). Has that been inquired about
    today? I will save that for the record, since we have
    apparently appropriated funds to continue that overtime, what
    the plans are of the agency in that regard. But, again, I will
    submit that. Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you, Senator Levin.
        Senator Baldwin, any other questions you would like to ask?
        Senator Baldwin. I will submit them for the record.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Thanks so much for joining us today
    and for your interest and participation.
        Senator Coburn, I have a couple more questions I am going
    to ask, but Dr. Coburn, do you have anything else you would
    like to add or take away?
        Senator Coburn. No.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Thank you.
        A few more and we will be out of here within 10 minutes, I
    promise.
        One of the things that struck me in the time I spent with
    Senator Levin up on the Canadian border was the work that we do
    with the Canadian Government, sharing resources, their ability
    to move across the border, Canadians into our country, us into
    theirs. They are working in a collaborative way in teams, the
    amount of intelligence that we share with one another. And we
    talk about force multipliers on the Southern border, on the
    Mexican border, what those might be. But one of the great force
    multipliers in this work that you all do is, obviously,
    intelligence. And if we are going to use the kind of VADER
    systems and other kind of air systems and marine systems to
    better allocate and deploy our ground forces on the border, one
    of the best ways to do that is intelligence.
        So I am going to ask you, if you can, to just compare for
    us the degree of helpfulness of information and intelligence
    sharing on the Northern border, compare that with what we have
    to work with on the Southern border. To the extent you can,
    compare and contrast. Is there anything we can learn for
    deploying our Southern resources on the Mexican border from
    what we are doing up North, sort of lessons learned? Please.
        Mr. McAleenan. I will start and defer to my colleagues for
    any additional response.
        I think what we are trying to do in terms of the ports of
    entry is really move our assessment of risk as far back in the
    travel cycle and supply chain as possible. So that involves
    getting intelligence from the intelligence community on the
    threat, the origin of the threat globally, how that threat
    might move toward us. And really, if you are looking at the
    Canada and Mexico collaboration, that is trying to understand
    who is trying to get into Canada and Mexico and to share
    information with them in terms of what we are seeing as the
    threat and to really benchmark what we call our targeting
    approaches. That is how we look at the data on people and
    things moving into the United States, similarly, into Canada
    and into Mexico, to try to pick out those people and goods that
    might present a risk.
        And so we are doing very similar things with both countries
    in terms of working together in their targeting centers with
    our National Targeting Center to share that information, to
    benchmark how we approach the threat, and to identify it. And
    that intelligence collaboration and sharing is going very well
    in both borders.
        Chairman Carper. Others, please.
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, thank you for the question. We
    continue to learn how important information and certainly
    intelligence is and our ability to protect this country. And as
    we learn things that we may have implemented on the Southern
    border in terms of collection or dissemination, we certainly
    try to apply that on the Northern border.
        But one of the most important characteristics, at least
    from our standpoint in implementing our strategy, is
    recognizing that, one, there is a convergence of transnational
    criminal organizations and terrorism. That is something that
    kind of changes the landscape in terms of how we have to
    continue to learn from DOD and others, the intelligence
    community, in terms of how they can support our ground agents
    on the field and being able to pre-deploy resources to be able
    to minimize risk. And one of the ways that we have understood
    how to do that better is to work with the intelligence
    community through our own Office of Intelligence and certainly
    through the Department and telling those analysts and
    collectors what is important to us.
        Historically, we never did that. We did not talk in terms
    of having priority intelligence requirements. Heck, we did not
    even have an intelligence cycle. So as we are starting to get
    smarter about that, we have identified what our intelligence
    are. And we took----
        Chairman Carper. So this reminds me of the old adage in
    business, ask your customer.
        Mr. Fisher. That is right. Yes.
        Chairman Carper. You are the customer.
        Mr. Fisher. Well, I think----
        Chairman Carper. One of them.
        Mr. Fisher. I grew up in an organization that I was always
    complaining as a Border Patrol agent that nobody is giving me
    any intelligence, right. And then when I got a little bit more,
    perhaps, wiser in my years and recognizing that nobody knew
    what I wanted because I never told them. And so this is kind of
    a common theme that was built within our new strategy that
    really says, OK, it is up to us to really understand what is it
    that we need.
        And, by the way, I cannot make the same mistakes that I did
    when I was running the Border Patrol Intelligence Division
    years ago, because when I found out--they said, hey, we need to
    know what your intelligence requirements are, I took a lot of
    smart people and we developed about a 30-pound binder and we
    handed them 247 intelligence requirements and then I sat back
    and waited, recognizing that this is not the way to do it,
    either.
        And so we are learning each and every day on how we work
    within the intelligence community, and we learn from our
    cooperation and efforts with the Department of Defense on how
    we can better do that. And we are, each and every day and each
    and every week, we are getting better about identifying what
    the intent and capability is of those individuals who wake up
    each and every day and think about nothing but to do harm to
    this country. That is our priority mission and we are getting
    better in that regard, sir, and I appreciate your leadership in
    helping us do that.
        Chairman Carper. Yes, you bet. Thank you. General Alles.
        Mr. Dinkins. Sir, I think you brought up a--I am going to
    jump in here, Randolph--but I think you brought up a really
    good point, because we have been talking a lot about the
    physical border and the security measures, and I can tell you,
    it has drastically changed, as you have seen. Like I said, I
    was in Detroit 10 years ago. If you had known that a person was
    going to cross with drugs, there was a good chance he was still
    going to get through because we did not have the resources or
    technology at the border to actually be able to run people's
    names. You might get the license plate run in time, and that
    was it. After 9/11, we shut it down by just running people's
    name. It caused a 12-hour back-up. Now, that same thing takes
    about 12 seconds. So that has changed.
        But, also, we have pushed the border out much farther with
    engaging our foreign counterparts and international partners so
    that we know the threat before they get here. Very shortly
    here, you will be able to--if somebody is sitting in a cave in
    a place that wants to do us harm hits ``enter'' on a visa
    security application--that is going to be vetted that night,
    and we will know the threat before we even schedule an
    interview at the consulate office. So technology has really
    changed a lot, as well as our international footprint which
    provides that intelligence. Because if I get investigative
    leads and I can tell Air and Marine about those leads; they are
    going to have better success at utilizing those limited
    resources and man hours to fly to make an interdiction.
        So, it is a continuous cycle that we create, and I think
    all four of us have dedicated 100 percent to it.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Do you want to add anything, General?
        Mr. Alles. I was just going to mention, we do share pretty
    heavily with the Mexican Government in terms of air tracks. We
    have Mexican officers in the Air and Marine Operations Center,
    so if we have nefarious tracks crossing either way, we
    coordinate interdictions on those tracks. So that is actually
    quite good cooperation.
        On the Northern side, it more falls to our links with
    Northern Command and the North American Air Defense Command.
        Chairman Carper. OK. This is a question that kind of flows
    from the work that Senator McCain and seven other Senators are
    doing, trying to lead the way to a thoughtful, comprehensive
    immigration reform proposal. A key requirement for us to be
    able to come to that kind of agreement is really based on what
    we are talking about here--our border is more secure. What is
    working? What is not working? What more can we do? You are our
    customer, in a sense, just like you are a customer of the
    intelligence agencies that you were talking about earlier.
        But my question, would comprehensive immigration reform
    make it easier to secure the border by creating some additional
    legal pathways for some--not all, but for some immigrants--thus
    making it a little easier to focus on the criminal threats? We
    think a lot about risk and trying to be sensitive to risk and
    deploying our resources where the risks are greatest, but how
    would you respond to that question? I do not care who goes
    first.
        Mr. McAleenan. I think, in a word, yes.
        Mr. Fisher. I agree, Senator. Yes.
        Chairman Carper. OK. General?
        Mr. Alles. Yes, sir. It certainly makes sense to me.
        Mr. Dinkins. Absolutely, sir.
        Chairman Carper. All right. OK. Let me just close with--
    Tom, anything you want to say in closing?
        Senator Coburn. No. I want to talk to General Alles
    afterward.
        Chairman Carper. OK. All right. A thought or two in
    closing, just to, again, reiterate how much we appreciate your
    service and the service of those men and women with whom you
    work and lead. This is important work, important to our
    country. I believe we are making progress, and you have shown
    us some pictures that would certainly suggest that. The metrics
    that we are using, while they are imperfect, I think tend to be
    encouraging.
        I think one of the reasons why the apprehension is going up
    is the economy is stronger. Two, some folks who live to the
    South of us think that comprehensive immigration reform might
    just pass, and I think that is moving some people, as well.
        But in terms of the questions, are borders more secure than
    they have been in the past, I think it is clear that they are,
    and we have heard that again reiterated today. Are we doing
    everything that we can do? No. Are we doing everything that we
    should be doing? No. Are there a number of steps we can take to
    do an even better job? Yes, and you have given us some
    indication of what those might be.
        Do we have the ability to pay for them? Well, not really.
    We are running a budget deficit of $500 billion this year. The
    President's budget comes out today and it is designed to keep
    us on a path to rein in the deficit. But we need some
    additional revenues. We talked a little bit about how user fees
    might be helpful to enable us to deploy the resources that we
    discussed here today. And we had a chance to talk about what
    better intelligence and better use of intelligence can be
    helpful as a force multiplier.
        But I leave the hearing understanding the difficulty, the
    complexity of the challenges that we all face, not just you,
    but us, as well. But encouraged that we are learning. We are
    getting smarter and using pretty good common sense that will
    enable us to get us closer to the goal that we seek.
        One of my favorite sayings is, the road to improvement is
    always under construction, and that certainly applies here. But
    the road is improving, and we still have some work to do, and
    to the extent that we can work on it together, continue to work
    on it together, we are going to make a whole lot more
    improvement. And in doing so, I think we may lay the foundation
    for a thoughtful, comprehensive immigration policy that will
    actually reduce the desires and need for people to make these
    illegal entries into our country.
        With that having been said, the hearing record will remain
    open for 15 days for the submission of additional statements
    and questions. If you get some questions, and I am sure you
    will, please respond to them promptly and we will look forward
    to continuing to work with you.
        All right. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Again,
    thank you so much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     BORDER SECURITY: EXAMINING PROVISIONS IN THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC

            OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT (S. 744)

                                  ----------

                              TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013

                                           U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
    Carper, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Landrieu, Baldwin, Heitkamp,
    Coburn, McCain, Johnson, Portman, and Paul.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER

        Chairman Carper. Good morning, everyone. The hearing will
    come to order. Dr. Coburn and I are delighted to welcome all of
    you today.
        This is the third of a series of hearings that this
    Committee is holding to examine the gains in security that have
    been made at our borders over the past decade and to review
    what impact immigration reform may have on those borders.
    During our two previous hearings, we heard testimony from
    experts, including some folks at this table today, and from
    frontline personnel about the dramatic improvements we have
    seen in portions of our southern border region since the last
    time that Congress debated immigration reform 7 years ago, in
    2006.
        In recent years, we have made substantial investments in
    border security. I believe those investments are for the most
    part paying off. In 2006, the Border Patrol was averaging more
    than 1 million arrests of unauthorized immigrants each year--1
    million per year--and the unauthorized population living in the
    United States had reached an all-time high of 12.5 million
    people.
        Since then, we have added more than 9,000 Border Patrol
    agents, bringing their overall staffing level to more than
    21,000. We have also constructed some 600 miles of new fencing
    and deployed sophisticated cameras, sensors, and radars across
    a good part of our border with Mexico. In part because of these
    investments, apprehensions of individuals attempting to cross
    our borders illegally are at a 40-year low, and the
    unauthorized population in our country has actually decreased
    by about a million people.
        Despite all these developments, we are still facing
    challenges. All too often, however, these challenges have deep
    roots in our own domestic policies and the socio-economic
    conditions of our neighbors. One of our witness noted that we
    look to the border to solve problems that do not originate
    there. I could not agree more. We need to focus on the
    underlying causes of illegal immigration and drug smuggling.
        The expert and frontline witnesses at our hearings earlier
    this year were all in agreement that passing immigration reform
    would make our borders more secure. It will do so by addressing
    several of the root causes of illegal immigration, providing
    workers and employers with legal avenues to fill the jobs that
    our economy needs to thrive, and allowing our border officials
    to focus their efforts on criminals rather than on economic
    migrants.
        I believe that the bill we are examining today represents a
    significant step toward achieving that goal. It will increase
    our security even as it provides a fair, practical, and tough
    path to citizenship for many--but not all--of the millions of
    people living in the shadows today. I want to commend eight of
    our colleagues--especially Senator John McCain, a Member of our
    Committee--who have worked tirelessly, and I think fearlessly,
    to craft the bill on which we are discussing today. I look
    forward to debating that bill on the Senate floor later this
    spring.
        The goal of today's hearing is to review the bill's border
    security provisions, which are in this Committee's
    jurisdiction. We have before us an excellent panel of witnesses
    from frontline agencies. We have asked the witnesses to give us
    their assessment of the bill, to tell us how they would
    implement the border provisions, and to let us know what they
    believe they may need--or that we may need to add or to change
    to that bill.
        There is an old Chinese proverb--and some of you have heard
    me say this before--that goes something like this: ``Tell me, I
    will forget. Show me, I may remember. Involve me, and I will
    understand.'' That is why I have tried to visit as much of the
    border region as I can. Three years ago I visited the
    California border--many of you have, too--and over the past 3
    months, I have been privileged to go down to the border in
    Arizona with Senator McCain, Representative Michael McCaul, who
    chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, and with Janet
    Napolitano, our Secretary of the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS). I have been up to the Canadian border with
    Senator Carl Levin. We have been over to Texas just in the last
    week checking out some of the area in the eastern portions of
    that country. We have a lot of people coming across the border
    that are not from Mexico. They are coming from places other
    than Mexico, as you know.
        But I have personally witnessed the challenges that our
    brave men and women working on the frontlines face every day.
    Some of you have, too. We have witnessed the terrain they are
    dealing with that varies widely along the border region, from
    the dense urban landscape of the border near San Diego, to the
    desolate and rugged desert and mountains of Arizona, to the
    lush vegetation and winding lengths of the Rio Grande Valley in
    Texas. We have some places along the border, on the Rio Grande,
    where we actually looked to the north was Mexico, and you
    looked to the south was Texas. A pretty amazing realization,
    and lush, almost hard to penetrate vegetation along much of
    that river.
        Based on what I have seen, I believe there is no one-size-
    fits-all solution for securing our border. The high-tech radars
    that work so well in Arizona today will not penetrate much of
    the dense foliage along the Rio Grande in Texas that I saw last
    week. The drones that the Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    flies work great in some areas, but can barely fly in others
    when the winds exceed 15 knots, which is often. Achieving the
    goal of persistent surveillance set by the bill we are
    examining today, then, will be challenging and costly. However,
    it is not impossible.
        There are, for example, a number of common-sense steps that
    we can take to get better results along our borders. One of
    them should be identifying and deploying what I call force
    multipliers that are appropriate for the different sectors
    along our border. In some parts of the border, these may be
    advanced radar systems on drones. In others, it may be camera
    towers or systems that are handheld or mounted on trucks. We
    need to systematically identify the best technologies with your
    help and those of your colleagues so that we will make our
    frontline agents more effective and provide them with the help
    that they need to be more successful in a cost-effective way.
        One specific thing I have seen firsthand is that an
    aircraft without an advanced radar sensor onboard to help
    detect illegal activity on the ground is of very little value.
    Far too many of the aircraft we deploy in support of the Border
    Patrol are not fitted with cameras or sensors that have been
    proven effective. In McAllen last week, where I visited, we are
    flying three different types of helicopters, but only one of
    them is outfitted with these kinds of technologies. The other
    two are largely ineffective. We have to be smarter than this.
        By comparison, in Arizona I saw an inexpensive single-
    engine C206 airplane that had been fitted with an advanced
    infrared camera system, which had proven to be extremely
    effective and inexpensive to operate. However, the Border
    Patrol has 16 more of these C206 aircraft that do not have any
    advanced sensors on board and are barely used. In fact, they
    are almost worthless. We need to fix that. And it is not all
    that expensive. We also need to continue to develop and deploy
    cost-effective technologies, such as handheld devices that I
    have seen that allow Border Patrol agents to see in the dark or
    enable our officers at our ports of entry to more efficiently
    process travelers and goods.
        Investing in our ports of entry will also be an incredibly
    important part of improving border security and our economy as
    well. I am pleased, then, that the proposed legislation we are
    discussing would provide some 3,500 new officers at legal
    border crossings nationwide. These officers represent a
    worthwhile investment for the country, helping to secure our
    borders even as they facilitate the trade and travel that our
    economy so badly needs. These 3,500 new officers cost a fair
    amount of money, and we have an obligation to figure out how to
    pay for that. And I believe those who have been working on this
    legislation that is before us today have been working on that,
    and the Administration has, too. There are some good ideas.
    Hopefully we will implement those.
        However, there are some things that I believe may be
    missing from the immigration reform bill. I plan to work with
    all of our colleagues here in the Senate to address them. One
    of the largest issues we are facing today is growing
    unauthorized immigration from Central Americans who transit
    through Mexico. I want to hear from our witnesses about what we
    can do to address this issue, not just address the symptom of
    the problem, which I saw firsthand in a detention center with
    1,100 mostly Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, a few
    Mexicans, last week in Texas. One thing that we may need to
    explore is how to make it easier for our border officials to
    work with and train their Mexican counterparts in order to help
    Mexico secure its own borders.
        Finally, I also believe that the Department of Homeland
    Security needs to do a much better job of measuring its
    performance at our borders and that these performance measures
    must be made available to Congress and to the American people.
    If we have not heard anything else in these hearings before, we
    need to be able to measure what we are doing, what you are
    doing. We need to be able to do that in an objective way that
    people understand, that we understand, and that you understand.
        The bill we are discussing today would make one such
    measure--we call it the ``effectiveness rate''--public. And
    while this is a good first step, I believe there are a number
    of other metrics concerning our activities at and between the
    ports of entry that should also be made publicly available. I
    look forward to exploring these questions with our panel and
    believe our country stands to benefit enormously from the
    tough, practical, and fair policies laid out in this bill. I
    especially look forward to working with Dr. Coburn and all of
    our colleagues on this Committee.
        Dr. Coburn.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN

        Senator Coburn. Thank you. I want to welcome you all here.
    I am excited to hear the discussion and interchange between
    what our Inspector General (IG) has said are problems and the
    answers to those problems.
        I think the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and
    Customs and Border Protection have a difficult job, oftentimes
    thankless, so I want to thank you now for what you do. It is
    hard.
        I am concerned with the immigration bill coming forward and
    the additional responsibilities that are going to be placed
    through that bill, if it were to become law, on the capability
    of the agencies to actually carry it out. And the reason I am
    concerned is because there are so many areas where we are not
    effective today. And although we have an immigration problem,
    what we really have is a border control problem and a visa
    problem and a guest worker problem. And it is important that we
    fix the real disease, not the symptoms. We do not have a secure
    border today, and we know that by the apprehensions. Even
    though they are less, it is still not secure. And I have a lot
    of concerns coming forward with the immigration bill. We will
    wait and see what happens in the markup. I think we made a
    mistake and we should have asked for sequential referral on it,
    because so much of it is going to impact the agency that is
    under the direction of this Committee.
        Nevertheless, I am very appreciative of the hard work of
    those giving testimony today, and I especially want to thank
    Anne Richards for her hard work and the outlining that she has
    done. We have some other concerns, especially on the drone
    program. We have inquired and not received adequate answers yet
    in terms of the privacy protections. We have had that letter in
    for, I think, over a month and have not gotten appropriate
    answers or satisfactory answers to those questions. And that is
    one of the things that has to be a part of any drone program.
        I look forward to your testimony. Again, I thank you for
    your efforts. And I think what Senator Carper has put forward
    is we really want to work as a Committee to help you accomplish
    your jobs, not throw up roadblocks but actually find out what
    the real problems are, what we can do about it, but also hold
    you accountable for the things that you can be doing that you
    are not doing today as outlined by the IG.
        So thank you, Senator, and I appreciate our panelists.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you.
        Let me just dovetail, before I introduce our witnesses, on
    what Dr. Coburn has just said. Some of you have heard me tell
    this story before, but most of you have not.
        About a year or two ago, I was walking into the Special
    Olympics basketball tournament in Delaware. We were having it
    at the University of Delaware Bob Carpenter Center. And I
    walked in with one of the best high school basketball coaches
    in our State. We were walking in and I said to him, ``Coach,
    you have been doing this for a long time, coaching basketball.
    Who are the best players? Who are the best players on the team?
    Is it the person who is the best shot, the best rebounder, the
    best dribbler, the best passer? Who in your mind is the most
    valuable player?''
        And he said, ``The most valuable player on every team I
    have ever coached are the players who make everybody else
    better.''
        Think about that. The most valuable player on every team he
    has ever coached are those who make everybody else on the team
    better.
        We do a lot of oversight on this Committee and I think we
    are pretty good at it, getting better. But part of our
    responsibility is to find out how we make you better and the
    people that work with you better, the thousands of people that
    are down on the Mexican border, from California all the way
    over to the Gulf of Mexico and all up on the northern border as
    well. How can we make those people, your colleagues, better?
    That is what we are about.
        All right. With that having been said, I am going to
    introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is the Hon. David
    Heyman, Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of
    Homeland Security. Nice to see you. As head of the Office of
    Policy, Mr. Heyman leads a team of experts to provide strategy
    and policy development for the Department. Prior to his
    appointment in 2009, Mr. Heyman served in a number of
    leadership positions in academia, government, and the private
    sector.
        Our second witness is Kevin McAleenan. Acting Deputy
    Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In this
    capacity, Deputy Commissioner McAleenan is the chief operating
    official of Customs and Border Protection. He previously served
    as the Acting Assistant Commissioner of the agency's Office of
    Field Operations, leading its port security and trade
    operations. Welcome.
        Our third witness is Michael Fisher--nice to see you, sir--
    Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. Chief Fisher is responsible
    for planning, coordinating, and directing enforcement efforts
    to secure our Nation's borders. Prior to his current position,
    Chief Fisher served in a number of leadership positions within
    the Border Patrol, which he first joined in 1987. The Chief is
    joining us today for questions and answers and will not be
    giving an oral statement.
        Our next witness is Daniel Ragsdale, Deputy Director and
    Chief Operating Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement. Prior to this assignment, Mr. Ragsdale served as
    Executive Associate Director for Management and Administration
    at the agency. Previously, Mr. Ragsdale worked at the former
    U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service's Office of General
    Counsel and served as an attorney in New York and in Arizona.
        Our final witness is Anne Richards, Assistant Inspector
    General for Audits at the Office of the Inspector General
    within the Department of Homeland Security. She joined the
    Office of Inspector General in 2007. She was previously
    Assistant Inspector General for Audits at the U.S. Department
    of Interior from 2005 to 2007. And from 1984 to 1999, she
    worked with the U.S. Army Audit Agency.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, and we
    will now turn to Assistant Secretary Heyman for his opening
    statement. Please proceed. Your entire statement will be made
    part of the record, and we look forward to responding and
    asking questions. Thank you. Thanks for joining us.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID F. HEYMAN,\1\ ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
              POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. Heyman. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Coburn, and Members of the Committee. It is my distinct
    pleasure to be here today, this morning, along with my
    colleagues from ICE and CBP and our Inspector General's Office.
    It is also almost 4 years exactly to the day since this
    Committee gave me the honor and privilege to serve our Nation
    here at the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you for your
    continued support.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Heyman appears in the Appendix on
    page 322.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would like to begin by commending the work of the
    bipartisan group of Senators who have put forward the current
    bill that we are discussing today. We all recognize that our
    immigration system is broken and that we can no longer ignore
    the problem. We need a system that meets the needs of law
    enforcement, businesses, immigrants, communities, and our
    economy. This legislation will attract skilled workers,
    encourage economic growth, and bring persons living unlawfully
    out of the shadows, making them right with the law, ensure that
    they pay penalties and back taxes and regularize their status.
    I applaud the Congress' efforts, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with you on this issue.
        The focus of this hearing is border security and how it
    relates to this bill. One of the principal missions of the
    Department of Homeland Security is to secure our Nation's
    borders, to prevent the illegal entry of people, drugs,
    weapons, and contraband while expediting legitimate trade and
    travel. I think it is important for the public to appreciate
    the extraordinary breadth and vitality of our U.S. borders and
    the work that DHS does every day securing them. So let me begin
    by describing an average day at our borders.
        On a daily basis, DHS processes over 1 million inbound
    travelers entering the United States by air, land, and sea. We
    pre-screen over 2 million passengers before they fly into, out
    of, within, or over the United States. We patrol over 3.4
    million square miles of U.S. waterways and 5,000 miles of
    diverse terrain on our northern and southern borders. We screen
    all cargo coming to and entering the United States. We manage a
    Trusted Traveler program with over 1 million individuals
    enrolled. We process well over 700 vessels in the maritime
    environment delivering goods to our businesses, homes, and
    communities. And we verify the identities and vet hundreds of
    thousands of visa applicants and individuals seeking to enter
    the United States every day.
        In the process of all of this work, ICE, CBP, and our U.S.
    Coast Guard will seize over 20,000 pounds of drugs at or near
    our ports of entry. We stop over half a million dollars daily
    of counterfeit currency from entering our financial system. Our
    Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit will arrest over
    100 individuals who have violated immigration or customs laws.
    And we will remove and return an average of 1,200 individuals
    daily who are unlawfully present. That is what we do daily, 24/
    7, 365 days a year.
        It is essential to note, however, that the way we manage
    border security today has changed significantly over the past
    10 years. During the last 4 years in particular, the Obama
    Administration has made crucial investments in border security,
    adding personnel, improving technology and strengthening
    infrastructure.
        As Secretary Napolitano has previously stated, our borders
    have never been stronger.
        First, we have made our ports of entry much more efficient,
    facilitating lawful trade and travel.
        Second, we have expanded our partnerships with the Federal,
    State, and local partners and territorial law enforcement as
    well as with the private sector.
        Third, internationally we continue to improve partnerships
    to deter illegal smuggling and trafficking and improve
    intelligence and information sharing so that we can identify
    threats well before they reach our shores.
        The numbers speak for themselves. In 2004, the Department
    had a total of 10,000 Border Patrol agents. Today we count
    21,000. At the southwest border, we have increased our Border
    Patrol agents by nearly 94 percent. And in the northern border,
    we have 2,200 Border Patrol agents. We have increased the
    number of CBP officers (CBPOs) who secure the flow of people
    and goods into our Nation to over 21,000 officers, up from
    17,000 in 2003.
        As my colleagues with me today will tell you, these
    enhancements have resulted in greatly improved enforcement
    procedures, trade facilitation, and outcomes.
        In order to support a modern immigration system, the
    Department also understands that we must have the ability to
    effectively track not only who enters our country, but also how
    and when they exit. For two decades, the Federal Government has
    worked to obtain accurate and timely data on individuals who
    have overstayed their period of admission to the United States.
        However, the United States did not build its border, air,
    and immigration infrastructure with exit processing in mind.
    Airports do not have designated exit areas for departing
    passengers or specific checkpoints where a passenger's
    departure is recorded by an immigration officer, as you have
    seen in other countries. So it has been a challenge. Even so,
    over the past decade, DHS piloted various programs in 15
    airports to try to achieve such a system. We found that the
    limitations of existing technology plus the lack of
    infrastructure for departing passengers would drive the cost of
    a program to nearly $3 billion or more, while disrupting air
    travel for passengers and airlines alike.
        Secretary Napolitano found that to be unsatisfactory, and
    in 2010, she directed the Department to enhance the existing
    exit system to a level of fidelity equal to or nearly equal to
    a biometric system while continuing to pursue a more cost-
    effective solution in the future.
        Over the past 3 years, I am pleased to say that the
    Department has taken steps to implement affordable measures to
    achieve those goals. Through enhancements to our current
    system, which electronically matches the information on an
    individual's passport at arrival and departure, DHS can now
    identify and target for enforcement those who have overstayed
    their period of admission and represent a public safety/
    international security threat. We take action against those,
    and, moreover, we continue to move forward with building a
    biometric system and advance the requisite technologies to be
    integrated into the system when it is cost-effective and
    feasible to do so. This marks a significant step forward.
        Let me conclude by saying that over the past several years
    the Department has made substantial gains in border security.
    We have significantly reduced the flow of illegal immigration.
    We now have a historic opportunity to strengthen our economy,
    improve our security, and address illegal immigration. It is
    time for common-sense reform of our immigration system.
        I thank the Committee for their work on this today. I look
    forward to working with you and to answering your questions.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks, Mr. Heyman. Mr. McAleenan.

    TESTIMONY OF KEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\1\ ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
    U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
                                SECURITY

        Mr. McAleenan. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking
    Member Coburn, and distinguished Members of the Committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and appear
    before you.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. McAleenan appears in the Appendix
    on page 322.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On behalf of the men and women of U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection, Chief Fisher and I appreciate the Committee's
    leadership and commitment to ensuring the security of the
    American people, and we look forward to discussing the progress
    we have made in strengthening the border and how comprehensive
    immigration reform will build on our successes and improve the
    security and safety of the United States.
        With your support, CBP has made historic investments in
    border security, adding more personnel, technology, and
    infrastructure; making our ports of entry more efficient to
    lawful travel and trade; deepening partnerships with Federal,
    State, tribal, local, and international law enforcement;
    improving intelligence and information sharing to identify
    threats sooner; and strengthening entry procedures to protect
    against the use of fraudulent documents. We have deployed
    proven, effective technology to the border, tailored to the
    operational needs of our agents on the ground, and strengthened
    our air and marine interdiction capabilities.
        Today, after 10 years of investments in training and
    equipment and improved information sharing, our border is more
    efficiently managed and stronger than ever before.
        The framework articulated in the comprehensive immigration
    reform bill has the potential to advance these efforts further.
    The bill would continue to strengthen security at our borders
    as well as it would hold employers more accountable if they
    knowingly hire undocumented workers. It would also modernize
    our legal immigration system, providing lawful pathways for
    important categories of workers for our economy. CBP will
    continue to work with Congress on these much-needed reforms
    that will help make our border more secure.
        We are now more capable than ever in our efforts to secure
    the border between ports of entry. We have doubled the number
    of Border Patrol agents; deployed surveillance systems, both
    static and mobile; we have improved intelligence collection and
    provided critical situational awareness in support of our
    agents and officers on the ground.
        Primary fence and vehicle barricades in strategic locations
    have limited the options available to smuggling organizations
    to operate, and aerial platforms with advanced technology have
    substantially increased situational awareness, enhancing the
    way we deploy our resources on the ground and leading to
    increased operational effectiveness on the southwest border.
        Additionally, over the past 2 years, advanced assessment of
    enforcement data has produced programs such as the Consequence
    Delivery System, which has allowed us to reduce the percentage
    of apprehensions that result in a voluntary return from 41
    percent in 2011 to 22 percent in 2012. Moreover, Consequence
    Delivery has contributed to the reduction in the overall rate
    of recidivism from a 6-year average of 24 percent to 12 percent
    today.
        At our ports of entry, we have increased the number of CBP
    officers facilitating the secure flow of people and goods into
    our Nation from approximately 17,000 customs and immigration
    inspectors in 2003 to more than 21,000 CBP officers and 2,300
    agricultural specialists today.
        In fiscal year (FY) 2012, CBP officers arrested 7,700
    people wanted for serious crimes, including murder, rape,
    assault, and robbery. Our officers also stopped nearly 145,000
    inadmissible aliens from entering the United States through our
    ports of entry.
        To build on these successes, the Administration's fiscal
    year 2014 budget includes a request for 3,477 new CBP officers.
    Of this amount, 1,600 are requested through appropriated
    funding, and legislative changes to user fee collections are
    recommended to fund an additional 1,877 officers. These new
    officers will support economic growth and promote the creation
    of new jobs.
        A recent study released by the Center for Risk and Economic
    Analysis of Terrorism Events at the University of Southern
    California has found that an increase in staffing at ports of
    entry has an impact on wait times and transaction costs and,
    therefore, on the U.S. economy. According to the study's
    results, the new CBP officers supported in the fiscal year 2014
    budget request could generate an estimated 115,000 new jobs
    each year and increase the gross domestic product (GDP) by up
    to $7 billion.
        To build on these successes, efforts to strengthen security
    at our borders must continue as threats evolve. This bill will
    enable CBP to continue to expand the use of proven
    technologies, to secure the land and maritime borders,
    strengthen and enhance capabilities at ports of entry, and
    combat illicit border activity. Immigration reform will allow
    us to build upon the progress we have already made and
    strengthen our ability to assure a safe and thriving border.
        Thank you once again for inviting us to appear today. Chief
    Fisher and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the significant
    progress that CBP has made in strengthening our Nation's
    borders and answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks very much.
        Chief Fisher, I understand you are not here to testify. I
    would just ask: Do you approve this message?
        Mr. Fisher. Without reservation, Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks very much. OK, good.
        All right. Mr. Ragsdale, you are on. Thanks. Welcome. Glad
    you are here.

       TESTIMONY OF DANIEL H. RAGSDALE,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S.
        IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. Ragsdale. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carper,
    Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify today on the ongoing efforts to
    adopt important reforms to our immigration system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ragsdale appears in the Appendix
    on page 322.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ICE is the largest investigative agency in DHS and the
    second largest in the Federal Government. The men and women at
    ICE every day play a critical role in securing the border and
    carrying out smart and effective immigration enforcement
    policies.
        Since its creation 10 years ago, ICE has made tremendous
    strides and realized considerable law enforcement results. For
    example, ICE's Homeland Security Investigations has made over
    34,000 criminal arrests in fiscal year 2012. This record number
    represents an increase of nearly 30 percent over 2009. Many of
    these convictions came in areas directly tied to our border and
    our Nation's immigration system, namely, document and identity
    fraud, customs violation, human smuggling, and trafficking.
        ICE HSI has also developed the Illicit Pathways Attack
    Strategy (IPAS). This initiative supports the Strategy to
    Combat Transnational Organized Crime by focusing on
    international organizations engaged in narcotics, weapons,
    human smuggling and trafficking, cyber crime, and illicit
    finance.
        ICE has also set records in our civil immigration
    enforcement. We have done this by setting and carrying out
    smart, clear priorities. For instance, this year ICE's
    enforcement and removal operations removed a record number of
    individuals from the country. Fifty-five percent of those
    individuals, more than 225,000, had been convicted of felonies
    or misdemeanors. Yet another record of 96 percent fell into our
    full priority categories. These successes could not be achieved
    without the implementation of smart and effective and efficient
    policies issued by Secretary Napolitano and Director Morton.
        We were also proud of our key partnerships across the
    Federal Government. For example, I note ICE's Office of
    Professional Responsibility's (OPR) ongoing and strong
    relationship with our colleagues at CBP. For example, in 2010,
    ICE and CBP entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
    regarding investigations into CBP employee misconduct. This
    collaboration was not available before the MOU and has
    solidified ICE's commitment to fostering CBP's awareness and
    involvement into criminal investigations involving CBP
    employees. Our existing relationship has laid the groundwork
    for continued success in the critical area of ensuring the
    integrity of the workforce at the border. Maintaining this
    relationship will be critical following any reforms that
    involve increased staffing levels at the border.
        In addition, ICE plays an important role in investigating
    cases referred from CBP. Since fiscal year 2009, referrals have
    increased 4.1 percent at the ports of entry and 25 percent
    between the ports of entry. This relationship between our two
    agencies has made America safer.
        All of these successes are the result of reasonable
    immigration policies and priorities. Even at this time of
    budget uncertainty, we are using our resources in a smart,
    effective, and responsible manner. In order to build on these
    gains and further enhance national security, public safety, and
    border security, we must update our immigration laws.
        The adoption of reforms like those in the current bill will
    allow our agents and officers to better focus on those who
    threaten public safety, border security, and provide us the
    tools we need to crack down on those who cheat the system by
    hiring illegal labor.
        We at ICE look forward to working with you to modernize our
    immigration laws in a manner that strengthens the system. Thank
    you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
    answering any questions you have.
        Chairman Carper. Mr. Ragsdale, thanks very much.
        Ms. Richards, good to see you. Please proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF ANNE L. RICHARDS,\1\ ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL
      FOR AUDITS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

        Ms. Richards. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Coburn, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
    to testify today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Richards appears in the Appendix
    on page 328.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        You asked that we focus on the steps we believe the
    Department will need to take to ensure that the metrics in the
    Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
    Modernization Act are verifiable and enforceable. In preparing
    our testimony, we reviewed the results of audits and
    inspections of both border security and immigration programs. I
    will highlight only a few of those reports in my statement this
    morning.
        In the last 10 years, DHS has made progress in coming
    together as a Department and in accomplishing its fundamental
    missions, including securing our borders. However, numerous
    challenges remain.
        To implement this proposed legislation, DHS will need to
    fully assess its current status, methodically identify needs
    and requirements, and meticulously plan and execute future
    acquisitions and operations. This effort will require both time
    and resources, but ultimately the Department should be able to
    master this challenge.
        Today I will highlight three overarching issues that we
    identified in our audits and inspections that the Department
    will need to address to achieve the goals and standards set
    forth in this act: data reliability, planning, and systems
    modernization.
        The first issue I would like to discuss is data
    reliability. To evaluate its performance and carry out certain
    actions in the proposed act, DHS will need complete, accurate,
    and up-to-date information. In our reviews, we identified many
    programs and systems that did not have complete and accurate
    data. We also identified instances in which DHS did not have
    data that it needed from other entities.
        For example, in a December 2011 report, we determined that
    ICE officers making decisions about detentions or release of
    criminal aliens did not always maintain accurate and up-to-date
    information in the case management system. Late last year, we
    reported that in the Systematic Alien Verification for
    Entitlements Program (SAVE), immigration status information was
    sometimes outdated and erroneous, so some people were
    mistakenly identified as having lawful immigration status when
    they did not have it. This could mean that some individuals
    would be given benefits that they were not entitled to receive.
        In our audit of the Free and Secure Trade (FAST), program,
    we found that CBP could not ensure that Mexican participants
    are low risk because Mexico does not share information to
    assist CBP in continuously vetting and monitoring participants'
    eligibility. Also, ineligible drivers may have continued to
    participate in the program because CBP used incomplete data for
    the continuous vetting process.
        The second overarching area the Department needs to address
    is planning. To fully accomplish the actions laid out in the
    act, such as increased surveillance on the southern border, the
    Department will need to have an effective planning process to
    identify operational requirements. For example, the act
    requires 24/7 monitoring of the border by unmanned aerial
    systems. The Department will need the operating requirements,
    including knowing the necessary quantity of aerial vehicles,
    ground support, maintenance, fuel, and where those resources
    will be needed. The Department has established directives and
    policies for planning, but does not yet have detailed plans
    completed for unmanned aerial systems.
        Last, the Department will need to address some longstanding
    business and information technology (IT) systems challenges and
    continue to pursue additional technologies to address border
    security issues. Although DHS is taking steps to upgrade and
    integrate its business and IT systems, including those related
    to immigration, it has not yet succeeded in fully transforming
    them.
        For example, in a report issued in late 2011, we noted that
    the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)'
    transformation has been delayed and that it continues to rely
    on a paper-based process to support its mission.
        In addition, DHS needs to seek out and adopt new
    technologies that will take into account the needs of various
    components and enhance its ability to secure our borders. Last
    year, in reviewing CBP's Strategy to Address Illicit Cross-
    Border Tunnels, we concluded that it had not been able to
    identify any existing effective tunnel detection technology.
    CBP is actively working to identify new solutions for tunnel
    detection.
        We have identified a number of challenges that DHS must
    overcome to secure our borders and establish effective
    immigration policies and processes. Some of these challenges
    are a result of differing legacy systems and programs that need
    to be integrated and coordinated among the components and with
    stakeholders outside of the Department. Other challenges are
    related to inadequate strategic planning, performance measures,
    and data and information that cannot be relied on to make sound
    decisions.
        Based on the Department's and the components' responses to
    our numerous reports, it is clear that they are diligently
    working to address these issues. However, it takes time to
    correct the underlying conditions. Competing and changing
    priorities and funding uncertainties also affect the
    Department's ability to address these issues. For these
    reasons, overcoming these challenges will take considerable
    effort. But we believe that the Department will continue to
    improve and achieve its goals. The Office of Inspector General
    will continue to work with DHS and Congress on these issues.
    Our goal remains the same: to develop solutions that strike a
    balance between protecting the integrity of mission
    accomplishment and fostering innovation that increases the
    Department's transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I welcome
    any questions that you or the Members may have.
        Chairman Carper. Ms. Richards, that was very helpful
    testimony. Thank you. Thank you all.
        I want to just go back. I think Dr. Coburn mentioned the
    words ``underlying illness,'' not just the need for us to
    address symptoms of problems, folks that are undocumented
    coming across our borders, but coming here documented and
    staying beyond their legal limits. We need to focus while we
    work on the symptoms, which are more visible and which we talk
    about a whole lot, but think about the underlying causes. And
    we are part of the problem.
        I do not remember what it was that the Project on
    Government Oversight (POGO) used to say, but POGO used to say
    something like, ``We have seen the problem, and it is us.'' And
    in no small way, we are the problem. We have a huge trade in
    illegal drugs in this country, and they have to come from some
    place, and we cannot shut them down internally. We try to, but
    part of the number of those come across our borders from the
    south, some from the north, some comes across with people
    getting across a river, some across deserts, others on
    airplanes, on ships, on boats, you name it. The drugs come
    north, the guns go south. And that is a big part of the
    problem. We have a couple of former Attorney Generals (AGs)
    here, and they know of what I speak.
        The second thing is we have employers in this country who
    are knowingly hiring illegal aliens, and in some cases they try
    to hire Americans to do a certain kind of work. Americans do
    not want to do it. And one of the things we need to do is to do
    a better job, an ever better job of making sure that those that
    are knowingly hiring illegal aliens are stopped. And to the
    extent that we can punish them severely, identify them and
    punish them severely, we need to do that. We need to send a
    message.
        The other thing that we need to do is do a better job
    working with intelligence, not just from the north but
    certainly from the south, and countries, too, Mexico and in
    Central America to better be able to deploy our forces along
    the border. So those are some of the--almost like symptoms that
    I will say--those are really some of the underlying causes.
    Some of the underlying causes. People I met with in the
    detention center in McAllen last week, most of them are the age
    of my boys, early 20s, late teens. They are just looking for a
    better way of life. We squeeze the balloon in northern Mexico
    for the drug cartels, and when we squeeze a balloon, it pops
    out someplace else, and it is popping out in places like El
    Salvador, places like Honduras, and places like Guatemala, and
    a lot of the people that are streaming north are coming because
    of the mayhem, the murder and mayhem in their countries now,
    and we are part of that problem. So I just think it is
    important to have that as a predicate for what we need to do.
        My story earlier about the basketball coach who said the
    best players are the ones that make everybody else better? Now
    I want to ask you to tell us how we can make you better. All
    right. A couple of examples. I am an old Navy OP-3 mission
    commander, spent about 23 years active and reserve in the
    airplane. Our job was to hunt for Red October in all the oceans
    in the world, throughout the cold war, and we still do that,
    not in just OP-3s today but in OP-8s, a new airplane. And I am
    going to talk about the C206s that we are sending out, or other
    aircraft or helicopters we are sending out, without any
    surveillance equipment. It just defies belief. The aircraft
    that I flew in all those years, we would go out, if we were
    tracking a diesel submarine, we would have the ability to, one,
    detect them when they came up with our radar, detect their
    scopes or detect them on the surface. We had the ability to
    detect their emissions if they were running their diesels. We
    had the ability to hear them. We had the ability to listen for
    their acoustic signature, to look at it visually. If they
    turned up their radars, came up to make sure that it was clear,
    then we could pick that up as well. We had any number of ways
    that we could find and track the Russian subs.
        When we send out a C206 and we have a pilot and we do not
    have an observer on board and we do not have anything that is
    looking down, any kind of this sophisticated equipment, that is
    crazy. And to say that we have more than a dozen of them that
    are down on the southern border of Texas with no surveillance
    equipment, I do not get it. And we have the same problem with
    our helicopters. We have these drones, we have four of them
    that we heard about when I was down with Senator McCain in
    Arizona, and we were told that of the four drones we have, we
    do not resource them. They can fly, two of them--during the
    course of a week, they fly 16 hours a day, 5 days a week, and
    if the winds are over 15 knots, we do not fly them at all. That
    just does not make any sense.
        Senator McCain. And the bad guys are aware of the schedule.
        Chairman Carper. And they have spotters on the top of
    mountains, hills, in America. I mean, if they were on a
    mountain in Afghanistan or if they were on a mountain in Iraq
    or something like that, we would take them out. And for some
    reason, we cannot take them out in our own country. It just
    defies belief.
        We are going to have a lot of money, thanks in no small
    part to this guy right here, to try to make sure that we have
    the resources, you have the resources to do some of the things
    that I have just been saying. All right. You are going to get
    this money. What are you going to do with it? Mr. Heyman. Along
    the lines of some of what I just said, what are you going to do
    with it?
        Mr. Heyman. Thank you, Senator. I think you have identified
    a number of issues that are reason for the need for
    legislation. And if you look at the work that we have been
    doing particularly over the last 4 years, what you see in the
    trend lines is that we are moving in the right direction.
        One of the things the bill does is it builds on the
    continuing deployment of proven and effective technologies that
    help address the drug trafficking and the illegal immigration
    issues. With the resources and the provisions in the bill, we
    will be able to do more of that, and the border will be more
    secure.
        You mentioned the challenges in the workforce. That is
    absolutely true. The workforce issues present, in fact, a
    magnet for illegal immigrants to come here, and we need to
    develop a system where employees check to see if somebody is
    lawfully present. We have that. It is called E-Verify. It is a
    priority of the Administration to make workforce validation
    universal, and that is in the legislation. That will be helpful
    as well.
        And so I think if you look at the very specific issues that
    you have addressed, you will find provisions within the bill
    that help us get to that direction.
        On the specific issues of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    (UAS) and the----
        Chairman Carper. C206.
        Mr. Heyman. Let me turn to my chief over here.
        Chairman Carper. Chief Fisher, go ahead. Take about 1
    minute, and then I am going to yield to Dr. Coburn.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Specifically with the 206--
    and I know I am speaking for General Alles as we work hand in
    glove in terms of what our requirements are on the ground, and
    the Assistant Commissioner for the Air and Marine Operations
    is, in fact, taking a look at current capability that we have
    from the air platforms and shifting those into other platforms
    where, one, they would work and, two, we could operate those at
    a lower cost. They are currently looking, both in terms of
    safety and in terms of flight readiness, to be able to do that
    testing and to get those deployed immediately.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Dr. Coburn, thanks.
        Senator Coburn. Ms. Richards, how would you characterize
    DHS's track record in planning and executing major
    sophisticated border security programs?
        Ms. Richards. The Department has concentrated a lot of time
    and effort recently on taking some significant steps to improve
    their acquisition and program management processes. I would
    have to say that, based on our work and the Government
    Accountability Office (GAOs) work, their track record has been
    admittedly lackluster to date. Again, however, I would say that
    they have put a lot of time and effort into putting the
    skeleton in place so that they can make major improvements on
    this process. We have not yet had an opportunity to audit an
    acquisition that has been through the entire process.
        I would also like to say that part of the problem is the
    perception that the process is not as important as the end
    result. We have had program managers tell us things like life-
    cycle cost estimates just gather dust once we have completed
    them because the information is not used as the program is
    ongoing for things like budgeting or obtaining money to
    continue to run the program.
        So because those intricate, difficult-to-complete planning
    documents are not viewed as valuable over the life of the
    program, they might be getting less attention than they should.
        Senator Coburn. Well, that is a question of leadership. In
    terms of your findings on current border operations, what
    challenges do you anticipate that DHS will have in terms of the
    new responsibilities and the execution of new strategies with
    this current proposed bill?
        Ms. Richards. The additional requirements do put additional
    responsibilities on an already stressed organization. As I said
    in my testimony, they have the capabilities, but they need to
    take the steps carefully and in order. They need to make the
    plans of what they are going to use the equipment they are
    purchasing for and then purchase the right equipment and make
    sure that they have it properly outfitted and that they have
    the support in place for it.
        Senator Coburn. So going back to what Senator Carper said,
    we have these 202s, I think you----
        Chairman Carper. 206s.
        Senator Coburn. 206s. One of them has mounted technology.
    Why is there one with mounted technology and the others with
    none? And why is it, in terms of the answer we just heard, we
    are looking at that when, in fact, what we already know is the
    answer? Is it a monetary problem? Is it an execution problem?
    Is it a management problem? And if they cannot do that, how are
    they going to handle the new requirements coming to them in a
    new immigration bill?
        Ms. Richards. Sir, we have not looked at that program
    specifically. In some of the other programs that we have looked
    at, there does sometimes seem to be--quick to follow the letter
    of what they have been asked to do, get some drones, so we get
    some drones, without really thinking about what it is going to
    take to be able to operate those drones in the current
    environments. And it is a planning issue as well as a
    management issue, sir.
        Senator Coburn. OK. According to your office, DHS has
    failed to close out 47 separate recommendations of recent
    reports by the IG related to border security work. That comes
    from a table listing all your recent audits and open
    recommendations. Can you run through the closeout numbers for
    the Committee? How many recommendations have they closed? How
    many have they not closed on border security?
        Ms. Richards. Sure. Thank you. That table had a total of 16
    reports with 47 open recommendations. There was a total of 51
    reports that we identified that had recommendations for border
    security and immigration processes. There was a total of 259
    recommendations in total, so you can see that a great number of
    the recommendations have been not only agreed to but
    successfully implemented. I do not have the percentage myself.
        Senator Coburn. Of these 47, what are the major ones that
    you would put as a priority for this Committee, so we know that
    you think these should be done first, second, third? And you
    can answer that later if you would rather, if that is too
    difficult for right now.
        Ms. Richards. Sure. I cannot go through all of the 47. I
    would say that we are particularly concerned about the
    recommendation on the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). We also
    have concerns about the recommendations on the FAST Program,
    the one to develop a process to assess the effect of the FAST
    Program on the security issues at the ports of entry.
        We have other recommendations that were not strictly on
    border security, but that were on a wider view, such as our
    recommendations on interoperable communications that we also
    think are very important for the Department to act on as part
    of this process.
        Senator Coburn. So if you were to create a to-do list for
    the agency, what would be No. 1, what would be No. 2, what
    would be No. 3?
        Ms. Richards. In the terms of this proposed legislation,
    completing the planning process for the UAVs would be No. 1
    from our recommendations that stand already. Looking at the
    legislation in its entirety, there is a lot of money to be
    spent or planned to be spent to increase technology at the
    border, and I would like to see them do a good job of planning
    all of that before they spend the money.
        Senator Coburn. OK. Director Heyman, what do you think
    about that in terms of especially the comments on UAVs? This
    country has a lot of technology that we have invested through
    our experiences overseas in terms of UAVs. Why is it difficult
    to get to the point where we actually have good technology
    associated with them? Why is it hard to get to where we need to
    go? Is it financial? What is it?
        Mr. Heyman. Thank you, Senator. There are a couple things I
    would comment on. One is that Border Patrol has put together
    for each of the sectors a technology plan, and within that
    technology plan, they have to consider not only what their
    strategic objectives are and how they accomplish them in the
    unique environments of each of the different sectors; they have
    to figure out what technologies match it, the procurement, the
    deployment schedules, and all of those things. And I would
    commend Mr. McAleenan's discussion on that because this is
    exactly what the IG is interested in. They want to make sure
    that we are planning, that it is unique to the sector, that we
    have oversight on that. And in the last year, I think there has
    been significant progress on that front.
        In terms of the UAVs in particular, we have actually stood
    up a UAV working group within the Department. It includes not
    just the operators but also the policy folks, the privacy
    folks, the civil rights and civil liberties. We are making sure
    that the integration of the technology meets our interests both
    from a policy and a privacy perspective.
        Senator Coburn. All right. My time has expired, Senator
    Carper.
        Chairman Carper. Senator Johnson please proceed. Thank you.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Heyman, you mentioned our exit policy. Before I
    get into other border security issues, I would like to just
    talk a little bit about the Boston city bomber. As best I can
    understand, we have a system that should be tracking that and
    should be pinging, and we have the Treasury Enforcement
    Communication (TEC) system, where suspect No. 1, I guess, was
    pinged and that information came in to an individual in the
    Department of Homeland Security. Can you just describe that
    process to me?
        Mr. Heyman. Sure. What you have is an IT system that in
    advance of a person's departure or arrival to or from the
    United States, usually somewhere around 72 hours in advance of
    that, sends a message called the Hot List, if there is an
    individual to take a look at or take a second look at. This is
    all done by CBP and the customs officials. In that case, if
    there is an active case or something that deserves an
    additional look from the Federal Bureau of Investigations
    (FBI), for example, it is sent to the specific Joint Terrorism
    Task Force that is overseeing that, and that is what happened.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Now, in this specific case, Tamerlan
    Tsarnaev was actually pinged, and somebody in the Department of
    Homeland Security did receive that information, correct? An
    individual?
        Mr. Heyman. Correct.
        Senator Johnson. Did that information get disseminated
    anywhere, or did that just dead-end right there?
        Mr. Heyman. I do not have the specifics on that, but that
    individual serves in the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force so the
    process is basically that they all share that information. When
    you are serving on it, you are sitting next to each other, and
    you are all working together.
        Senator Johnson. So has the Department really evaluated
    what happened there? Do you have an answer on that? I mean, can
    you provide that to our office?
        Mr. Heyman. There is a briefing for you and your staff on
    Friday, a classified briefing. They will go into all those
    details, yes.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Thank you.
        Let me just talk in general, the history of border
    security. I think we have really made a pretty long attempt
    here, since the mid-70s, mid-80s, to try and secure the border,
    apparently with some progress. But we continue to say, well, we
    need more resources. I think in one of our first hearings with
    Secretary Napolitano, I asked her, ``Well, how much would it
    cost to secure the border?'' And her response was, ``We have
    enough resources.''
        I think this bill is going to be spending another $4.5
    billion. What do we spend per year on border security right
    now, approximately? Does anybody know?
        Mr. McAleenan. I think if you combine the CBP and ICE
    budgets--that is a number I have seen before--it is upwards of
    $15 billion.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Do you think another $4.5 billion is
    going to make any further impact on that? I mean, are we just
    going to continue to throw resources at the problem?
        Mr. McAleenan. I do not think so. I think the framework
    laid out in the immigration reform bill targets some of the key
    areas, some additional capabilities with technology for
    surveillance between ports of entry and the southwest border,
    additional officers at ports of entry, which is an area where
    we have seen tremendous growth in trade and travel in all
    environments that we need to keep up with to make sure we can
    secure and facilitate it appropriately; and addressing legal
    immigration pathways as well as employers in the interior. I
    think those are investments that will advance border security
    and move us forward.
        Senator Johnson. I know the bill lays out a process where
    the Department, I guess, lays out another plan for securing the
    border. Do we not have that plan? Do we have to do this again?
    I mean, how many times have we developed a plan for trying to
    secure our border?
        Mr. McAleenan. I do think we have a good foundation for
    that plan, as Secretary Napolitano has stated. I think in the
    context of the bill, providing a specific road map that can be
    measured against and evaluated seems like an important aspect.
        Senator Johnson. Are we just doing more of the same, Ms.
    Richards? I mean, you talked about planning. We hear this all
    the time. I have been here now a little more than 2 years, and
    I hear the same bureaucratic answers over and over again:
    ``Well, we have to plan, we have to execute, and, of course, we
    always need more resources.'' But it does not seem like we have
    made all that much--we certainly have not secured the border.
    Maybe we are making progress. But we always hear we are making
    progress. Are we really?
        Ms. Richards. Well, I would like to differentiate between
    the plan to secure the border that you are talking about and
    the planning that I was talking about in my testimony, which is
    much more detailed, having to do with the equipment and the
    personnel and getting to the nitty-gritty, where the rubber
    meets the road resources to the right spot on the border when
    they need it. The planning that I am talking about is if you
    are going to buy a certain kind of aircraft, what does it need
    to be on the aircraft and how many do we need and how many
    pilots do we need and how many mechanics do we need? That is
    the kind of detailed planning that I would like to see the
    Department do before they spend the money that is identified in
    this legislation to implement the broader plan of securing the
    border through greater surveillance and technology.
        Senator Johnson. So the Department spends approximately $50
    billion per year. We are not doing that planning now with the
    $50 billion we are already spending?
        Ms. Richards. I, of course, can only speak to the programs
    that we have audited, and in those programs we find that they
    are not doing a good job of doing those detailed plans before
    they spend the money.
        Senator Johnson. I have sat through hearings now for a
    couple years, and we continue to hear about spotters on
    mountains. Why don't we take those people out? Why do we
    continue to have spotters for the drug lords in America sitting
    on top of mountains providing that information? What prevents
    us from taking them out?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, I will take that question. First of
    all, the environments in which we operate within our mission
    space is a law enforcement environment, very much different in
    terms of rules of engagement and what we can or cannot do in
    the comparative that the Chairman talked about in places like
    Afghanistan and Iraq. The rules of engagement, what we call our
    use of force, applies to individuals on the street or whether
    they are up on mountaintops. So it makes it a little bit more
    difficult in terms of what we actually do once we have
    identified them to actually get to them. We have plans in
    place. We, in fact, have removed many of those spotters. We are
    continuing to degrade the capability of those organizations
    that utilize spotters up on those mountains. But it continues
    to be a significant threat and a continued persistent on our
    part to be able to mitigate that.
        Senator Johnson. Just a quick estimate, how many spotters
    are there? How many have you taken out?
        Mr. Fisher. I do not have that number off the top of my
    head.
        Senator Johnson. How many have you taken out? I mean, you
    say you have taken some out.
        Mr. Fisher. A dozen, sir.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you.
        Next to question, in order of arrival, is Senator Landrieu,
    who may be back; Senator Baldwin will be next, followed by
    Senator Heitkamp, Senator McCain, and Senator Paul. Senator
    Baldwin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    start by thanking the men and women who serve in our Department
    of Homeland Security, some risking their lives at times on very
    dangerous terrain to keep our borders secure.
        I am encouraged to see the bipartisan product of S. 744.
    There are some encouraging provisions of the bill. It addresses
    border security, family reunification, employment verification,
    high-skilled workers, farm and guest workers, and pathways to
    legal citizenship for undocumented individuals. If done right,
    immigration reform will create jobs, strengthen businesses,
    bolster security at our borders, and keep more Wisconsin
    families together. Our responsibility is now to ensure that we
    keep America both safe and as promising as it ever has been.
        My question is about the trigger mechanism in this bill,
    and I would like to hear from any of you who wish to comment.
    As I understand it, the first sections of S. 744 require a plan
    to establish ``effective control'' of the border, and until it
    is operationalized, other major parts of this bill will never
    come into effect.
        To be deemed as having ``effective control,'' the
    Department of Homeland Security must have to establish
    persistent surveillance and pull together a plan with an
    effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher and 100 percent
    monitoring.
        Can you please flesh out for me as much as you are able how
    likely it is that we will be able to operationalize this plan
    given the resources allocated and the massive scope of this
    job? And are the timelines contemplated in the bill long enough
    to formalize a plan of this magnitude?
        Mr. McAleenan. I will start and then ask my colleague Chief
    Fisher to engage as well.
        We think the bill is a significant advance to border
    security across the board with the investments proposed, and we
    do believe that we can operationally execute the bill with the
    standards incorporated in it.
        I think Chief Fisher can elaborate on persistent
    surveillance and the 90 percent effectiveness, but we do intend
    to accomplish those goals.
        Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Senator. First, let me take your
    first part on the persistent surveillance, and I will kind of
    walk through, and if I miss any, please let me know.
        On the persistent surveillance, it is very similar to how
    we operationalize today. So I think of it in two terms. One is
    in areas where we need eyes on all the time, and so there are
    sections along the border where our field commanders and agents
    have assessed that there is always going to be a vulnerability,
    think in terms of urban areas or even in the fringes, where we
    know that if a person is not there or if a camera is not there,
    people are going to exploit those areas. So we have identified
    those areas over time that we do, in fact, need in a true sense
    persistent surveillance in either technology or Border Patrol
    deployments.
        In other areas, a vast majority of those other areas where
    we know based on intelligence, where we know based on agents
    patrolling those areas, that the activity is so low, persistent
    surveillance for us takes a form of situational awareness, and
    the way that we measure that right now and capture that is a
    whole host of things. I will just give you a couple of
    examples.
        One would be Border Patrol agents doing periodic tracking
    on the ground on those areas, Border Patrol agents that are
    very adept and experts over time at trying to identify who is
    coming into the country. We have tens of thousands of untended
    ground sensors that tell us basically what activity is
    happening in that area, and we aggregate that information and
    do analysis over time to see if, in fact, the shifts in traffic
    are moving in the different areas. And there are other things
    both in terms of the unattended--not the unattended ground
    sensors, but the unmanned aerial systems, utilizing synthetic
    aperture radar to do what we call ``change detection,'' in
    other areas where we have just recently, as of the beginning of
    March, started utilizing--and, again, we are really in our
    infancy of understanding this from others within the
    Government--geospatial intelligence. So we are looking at to be
    able to cover in a persistent surveillance either areas where
    we have high degree in eyes-on deployments of personnel and
    technology, which will always need to be there 24/7, and what
    other areas where we do and utilize technology in the air to be
    able to identify those areas.
        The second piece, as it relates to the effectiveness rate,
    the way that we calculate effectiveness is quite simply the
    following: it is the number of apprehensions plus the number of
    turnbacks. So these are individuals, the turnbacks are
    individuals that have made an entry and have turned around and
    gone back to the country from where they came. You take the
    apprehensions plus the turnbacks, and you divide that by the
    overarching entries, the total amount of entries that actually
    come in. That is our effectiveness rate.
        So three things generally happen when somebody enters in
    between the ports of entry, and two are good. We apprehend them
    or they turn around and go back. The third one, which is not so
    good, which we always try to minimize, is the amount of got-
    aways, people that have made the entry, we have detected them
    either through technology or through agent observation, and we
    try to continue to work that traffic, and in some cases they
    either load out or get away from us, and they are not either
    apprehended or turned back. That counts as a got-away. And so
    our ability is to make sure that effectiveness is higher in all
    areas, and we believe that at or above 90 percent is an area
    within those corridors that we should set the goal at 90
    percent.
        The last point on the timeliness, is the timeliness in
    terms of the implementation sufficient? And I believe it is.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks, Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Heitkamp is next when she returns. Senator McCain.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN

        Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I especially want
    to thank you and the Ranking Member for taking the time out of
    your schedule to come to the border. I invite my colleagues on
    the Committee to take the time to visit the Arizona border or
    the Texas border, whatever border of our southern border they
    choose to. I think it is the best way to make anyone aware of
    the immensity of the problem and the difficulty and the
    challenges that, frankly, our brave men and women who are
    serving on the border go through. And I want to thank both of
    you, and I invite my colleagues as well.
        Mr. Fisher, apprehensions are up this year for the first
    time in a long time. I think you testified before 13 percent?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator, that is correct.
        Senator McCain. Which means that the economy has something
    to do with people's desire to come across the border. Is that a
    valid assumption?
        Mr. Fisher. In part it is, sir, yes.
        Senator McCain. And part of it is the word has gotten south
    that sequestration has reduced our ability to surveil and there
    may be comprehensive immigration reform. Is that true?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. There are many motives for
    individuals still coming across the border.
        Senator McCain. But for the first time in years, it is up.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir, approximately 13 percent.
        Senator McCain. And we should be very cognizant of that.
        I do not mean to be parochial, but I think you would agree,
    especially for drug smuggling and other areas, especially the
    Tucson Sector is the most trafficked and most difficult and
    least secure part of the entire border. Would you agree with
    that, Mr. Fisher?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir; South Texas being a close second.
        Senator McCain. And in our bill, by the way, for my
    colleagues, there is a provision to prosecute--criminal
    prosecution for anyone who transmits information--i.e., these
    people on the mountaintops--to facilitate the drug traffickers.
        I want to talk to you for a minute about technology, Mr.
    Fisher. When you are down on the border and it is 120 degrees
    and you are sitting in a vehicle next to a fence, your
    efficiency drops rather significantly in a relatively short
    period of time, which is why so many of us emphasized the need
    for technology and sensors, and, of course, the Stuxnet, I
    guess it was called--no, the Boeing fiasco is such a disgrace,
    the loss of $787 million in an effort to provide sensors across
    the border. And I hope we learned lessons from that, I say.
        And there is a new radar called the vehicle dismount and
    exploitation radar (VADER) that was developed in Iraq to detect
    people who plant the improvised explosive devices (IEDs). It
    even tracks people back. How are you doing on that radar?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, we are still learning every day. As
    you well know--and you probably had the briefing down there, so
    I do not want to be redundant--the VADER system was relatively
    new to our fleet in terms of technology and giving us the
    capability that we have not seen before along the border, at
    least in my 26 years. And we are still learning the best way to
    implement that system.
        Senator McCain. Well, we have recommended--and I think it
    is language in the bill--that you consult with the army people
    who went through the whole evolution of this radar and how to
    use it most effectively. And that is not to kill people, but
    surveillance and detection--it is a marvelous advance in
    technology, which brings me to the UAVs. We have problems with
    the UAVs not only as far as numbers are concerned, but also
    interference with airspace that is being used by the military.
    How are we doing on that? Maybe I should ask Mr. McAleenan.
        Mr. McAleenan. I will check on the interface with the
    Department of Defense (DOD). I mean, we----
        Senator McCain. But you know it is a problem. The airspace
    being used by both the Border Patrol and the military has
    caused significant difficulties in getting clearance for the
    UAVs. Is that not true?
        Mr. McAleenan. Well, deploying new unmanned technology
    domestically has had some challenges. We work closely with the
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and DOD to----
        Senator McCain. But this is about specifically the ranges
    that are being used by the military aircraft, which complicates
    it a lot more. I hope you will report to us on that.
        Ms. Richards, you say other challenges related to
    inadequate strategic planning, a dearth of performance
    measures. Would you give us, the Committee, perhaps in writing,
    what ideas and thoughts that you have about how we can improve
    the performance measures on the border? There is a lot of
    concern about that.
        Ms. Richards. I would be happy to, sir.
        Senator McCain. Thank you.
        On the issue also, Mr. McAleenan, there is a problem with
    the Native Americans because of tribal sovereignty. Would you
    agree, Mr. Fisher, on that issue, especially the Indian
    reservation on the border?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, it does, like many communities, take
    an ongoing dialogue to be able to make sure that when we are
    operating in those environments, along with those communities,
    that there is an ongoing collaboration, integration, and
    certainly communication, and we continue to----
        Senator McCain. But up until now it has been a real
    problem.
        Mr. Fisher. It has been challenging in terms of being able
    to deploy technology, that is for certain, yes, sir.
        Senator McCain. Mr. Heyman, $4.5 billion is a lot of money,
    and there is also a provision in the bill that if after 5 years
    we do not have this effective control, another $2 billion will
    be spent. How confident are you that after the expenditure of
    the funds that are authorized and appropriated in this
    legislation, we will be able to take the measures necessary to
    assure the American people that never again will there be a
    third wave--never will there be a third wave?
        Mr. Heyman. Senator, I think that the legislation provides
    a number of different tools and devices as well as the
    appropriations. The reason it is called ``comprehensive'' is
    because it addresses a number of areas having to do with
    immigration reform. As a consequence of that, I think because
    of the worksite enforcement, because of the technology
    deployment, because of the streamlining of immigration laws, if
    you put all of that together, our ability to have better
    control of the borders I think will also improve. And so we are
    confident that it is the right formula.
        Senator McCain. Well, in conclusion, Mr. Heyman, Senator
    Johnson pointed out that there are some obvious areas,
    particularly on student visas and humanitarian visas, that need
    to be looked at. I think it would be appropriate, I would say
    to Senator Johnson, for this to be part of the amending process
    if--it is either existing laws are not being enforced correctly
    or we need new legislation and regulations to prevent the kind
    of occurrence where people can leave the country and only one
    agency detects it and then he comes back and nobody is alerted.
    Hearings are going to be held on this, but I believe it would
    be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, as we go through the
    comprehensive immigration bill, that we look at the errors that
    were made in the Boston situation and, most importantly, the
    areas that may require--and I emphasize ``may''--additional
    legislation to prevent that reoccurrence.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. Sure, and I thank you for that suggestion.
        Senator Heitkamp has rejoined us, and you are recognized.
    And next I think would be Senator Paul.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP

        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you all for the work that you do and thank your staffs
    for the work that they do under very difficult situations, and
    on tough terrain, as Senator Baldwin said.
        We will not get comprehensive immigration reform unless the
    public has confidence in what you do--unless the public
    honestly believes that this will be a sea change; that they
    will, in fact, see competent technology deployed, competent
    personnel deployed; and that they will see an absolute
    commitment to making sure that this happens, that this is not
    just something that we do because it is going to make us feel
    good that we do it. And we know that typically on borders there
    are two types of people who are crossing: those who come to
    work, those who come to pursue a better life, maybe join
    relatives; and then there is the criminal element. And we
    cannot downplay the criminal element because we see it
    certainly on the southern border, but we also have a great deal
    of concern on the northern border.
        And so I want to, just for a minute, in the small amount of
    time that I have, focus a little bit on the northern border.
    Because one of my concerns in looking at this, even though I am
    anxious to see your plans and anxious to make sure that this
    works, I am concerned about redeploying assets that we
    currently have on the northern border to the southern border,
    and what that means in terms of the impacts on protection in
    the northern border. And we know that at least one, maybe two
    of the September 11, 2001 bombers did not come in through the
    southern border. They came in through the northern border.
        And so explain to me, I think, Chief Fisher, you are the
    person that I understand the best because I am a former AG in
    North Dakota and worked very closely with Border Patrol. I
    always had a great relationship with them and felt like the
    collaboration that we had really kept people in my State much
    safer.
        Explain to me what the plans are in terms of maintaining
    security on the northern border and deployment of resources so
    that we do not lose focus of what is happening to the north.
        Mr. Fisher. Thank you for the question, Senator, and first
    and foremost, to your earlier point, I am committed to border
    security and protecting this country, so whatever the bill ends
    up being and passed, we will implement that and we will make
    sure that our commitment to protect this country is not
    changed, regardless of what happens. So I wanted to make sure
    that I made that point, and I am speaking on behalf of the
    21,000 men and women who do that each and every day. And thank
    you for that compliment, by the way.
        To your second point--and it is really interesting, and I
    am glad you brought up the northern border, because so many
    people think that the border is only the southern border. And
    earlier, before my first deployment to the northern border,
    which was in Detroit many years ago, it was different
    challenges, as you well know.
        It is a constant evaluation, whether you are looking at the
    southern border or the northern border. Threats are always
    dynamic. They are going to constantly change, and our ability
    not just every year to come up with a new plan or an
    implementation, we are constantly assessing all threats each
    and every day, and we are lifting and shifting resources along
    the northern border and the southern border against those
    threats. The whole idea of our strategy is to put our greatest
    capability against those greatest risks.
        Specifically on the northern border, over the last few
    years--and you will recall, prior to 2000, we had approximately
    300 Border Patrol agents to cover about 4,000 miles of border.
    That is a very daunting task if you are the only Border Patrol
    agent in many locations and you have to patrol hundreds of
    miles. And we leverage that by continuing to work with State
    and locals. We do the integrated border enforcement teams with
    the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and State and locals.
    We use that as a force multiplier and in a lot of locations, we
    do not need thousands of Border Patrol agents. We leverage the
    information. We do integrated planning and execution, and then
    we increase our ability to do two things: flexibility, which is
    the key in any implementation on this bill; and the second
    piece is for us to be able to rapidly respond to those emerging
    threats in advance, and our ability to do that on the northern
    border is in some cases more critical than it is on the
    southern border.
        Senator Heitkamp. Mr. Fisher not to ignore the rest of you,
    but I think I am most familiar with the work that you do, and
    obviously, in North Dakota, we consistently have intel meetings
    where we share--the Royal Canadian Mounted Police come down,
    and we spend a lot of time talking about what do you know, what
    is coming across, where do you think the gaps are. And I think
    you raised a very important part, a very important issue, which
    is: How do we collaborate? How do we expand our opportunities
    by including local, State, and maybe other governments' police
    forces, other governments' efforts in a collaboration so that
    we can leverage all of these resources?
        And so I hope as you move forward with these plans that we
    do not just look at it from the standpoint of high-tech
    technology, because we know that there are two ways we can do
    intel: One is from the sky and the other is just listening on
    the ground and what is moving.
        And so I am very interested in finding out what the plans
    are related to collaboration with local and State officials and
    law enforcement.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, Senator, and I was recently in Grand Forks
    and got a briefing, went out with the agents. I am not the
    expert there, but I would love to work and give you and your
    staff a briefing, a little bit more detailed briefing about our
    deployment strategies and methodologies specifically in that
    area.
        Senator Heitkamp. Yes, and my point in all of this, as we
    look at immigration reform, I think it is always the look is to
    the south.
        Mr. Fisher. Understood.
        Senator Heitkamp. And I want to make sure that, in that
    very important work looking to the south, we do not forget to
    pay attention to what is happening at the northern border.
        Mr. McAleenan. And if I might add very briefly, Senator, on
    the northern border the CBP officers that are specified in this
    bill as well as in the Administration's fiscal year 2014
    budget, a number of those would go to ports of entry on the
    northern border. They are deployed based on our workload
    staffing model where the greatest need is, both in terms of
    traffic and threat.
        Mr. Heyman. And I might also add, the opportunity here to
    talk about our partnership with Canada, you mentioned State and
    local, but we have an extraordinary partnership with Canada
    that the President put forward in his Beyond the Border
    Initiative that has allowed for a sea change in how we work
    with them. There is a 34-point plan that we are working
    through--increased infrastructure investments, joint
    operations, shared information that is allowing us to be a
    force multiplier, in effect, for what Canada is doing.
        Senator Heitkamp. And just very quickly, I am familiar with
    Beyond the Border. I am familiar with the attempt to not logjam
    commerce in the interest of law enforcement, and all that needs
    to be balanced. But, again, we are very concerned in North
    Dakota and all across the northern border that we not lose some
    focus that we have had on the northern border.
        Mr. Ragsdale. And if I could just add also, the Border
    Enforcement Security Task Forces, our operational platform that
    we work with our State and local partners, is a critical piece
    of the strategic, not only on the southern border but also on
    the northern border.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you so much.
        Chairman Carper. We appreciate your getting our focus back
    up to the northern border, Senator Heitkamp.
        If you look at the membership of this Committee, it
    includes a number of Senators whose States do border Canada. It
    includes Senator Levin from Michigan, Senator Tester from
    Montana, Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, Senator Johnson from
    Wisconsin, of course, Senator Heitkamp, and also Kelly Ayotte
    from New Hampshire. There is no shortage of people who are
    going to be interested in making sure we do not forget about
    that northern border.
        Senator Paul, good to see you. Please proceed.
        Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this
    distinguished panel here. I for one am for immigration reform.
    I think we should embrace immigrants as assets, people who want
    to come and find the American Dream. If you want to work and
    you come to our country, I think we can find a place for you.
        That being said, I am worried that the bill before us will
    not pass. It may pass the Senate, it may not pass the House. I
    want to be constructive in making the bill strong enough that
    conservatives, myself included, conservative Republicans in the
    House will vote for this, because I think immigration reform is
    something we should do.
        In this bill, I am worried, though--and this is similar to
    what Senator Johnson said--that it says, well, you have to have
    a plan to build a fence, but you do not have to build a fence.
    And if you do not have a plan to build a fence, then you get a
    commission. I do not know what happens if the commission does
    not do anything. That is the story of Washington around here.
        To me, it is a little bit like Obamacare, and I hate to
    bring that up, but 1,800 references to the Secretary shall at a
    later date decide things, we do not write bills around here. We
    should write the bill. We should write the plan. We should do
    these things to secure the border. Whether it be fence, entry-
    exit, we should write it, not delegate it, because what is
    going to happen in 5 years, if they do not do their job--it may
    not even be them. It may be somebody else who does not do their
    job in 5 years, and the border is not secure, we will be blamed
    for the next 10 million people who come here illegally.
        The work visa program has to work. We have to make it work.
    That is where the illegal immigration is coming from because
    people are not getting their work visas.
        With national security, I sent a letter earlier this week,
    and I do not know if you have had a chance to look at it,
    Senator Carper, but in that letter, I asked that we mark this
    up. National security is a big part of immigration, and it is a
    separate part, and we should go through detail after detail,
    but then vote on amendments in our Committee to add to the
    immigration bill.
        And some say, ``Oh, you are doing this just to kill the
    bill or slow it down.'' No. I want the bill to be better so we
    can pass it. I think the stronger this bill is, the better
    chance we have of passing it. My goal is to pass the bill.
        I am concerned about two things in particular: refugees and
    student visas. Student visas, as was mentioned, had to do with
    some of the September 11, 2001 hijackers. Right after September
    11, 2001, we passed a program called National Security Entry-
    Exit Registration (NSEERS) program, and we had it for about 10
    years. It has been defunded now and no longer exists. We looked
    at 25 countries more carefully, and we were absolute about it,
    and thousands of people were sent home who were not in school,
    who were not doing the right thing, who were not obeying the
    rules we had set up.
        I am disturbed really that the FBI investigated this young
    man, this Tsarnaev boy, and then they did not know he was
    leaving the country. He was on a Central Intelligence Agency
    (CIA) list. We said all the billions and trillions we spent on
    homeland security was so the FBI would talk to the CIA. And I
    am concerned that--I do not know if they were talking, but for
    some reason, it does not appear as if we knew he was leaving
    the country. Once he left to Chechnya, he needed another
    interview. And I do not fault them for interviewing him and
    maybe not catching him the first time, but how many people did
    Russia refer to us? Was it 50,000 people that they wanted us to
    look at or was it 10? If it was 10, we should have spent a lot
    of time with those 10, and we should have been monitoring them
    just because Russia thought they were a problem on them
    leaving. I would do it with a judge's warrant because I believe
    in due process, but I still would do it.
        So I would have hearings, and my purpose of this is to
    specifically ask Senator Carper and Senator Coburn to consider
    having hearings where we actually physically take control of a
    part of the bill and do national security hearings, have
    amendments, not to defeat the bill but to make it stronger, to
    look at how many refugees we can process. And if we are
    bringing in 200,000 refugees, maybe we need to bring in 100,000
    or 50,000. Maybe the number has to be smaller so we can manage
    it.
        In my town of Bowling Green, two refugees came in, and
    their fingerprints were on an IED. They immediately started
    buying Stinger missiles. Fortunately, it was from the FBI and
    we caught them, but they got into the country even though their
    fingerprints were on a bomb.
        I think too many people are coming in too quickly without
    enough review and that we need to target the review to the
    countries that seem to have hotbeds of people who hate us.
        But I would like to see an orderly fashion where we do not
    just say, oh, come up with a plan, if you do not have a plan,
    we get a commission. That is where I see it now. If it is not
    any stronger than this, I do not see it getting through the
    House.
        So I would only beseech the Chairman to consider whether or
    not we could actually have here--and I would welcome a comment
    if you would like to make a comment with that regard.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks very much for your question and
    really for, I think, the good intent that you bring to these
    issues.
        First of all, on the issue of sequential referral, I have
    asked our staffs about this. Senator Coburn said earlier today
    that he would like to see a sequential referral of the bill to
    our Committee. And my staff advises me today that, in order for
    us to do that, we have to ask unanimous consent--the
    parliamentarian has made the decision that the bill be referred
    to another Committee. We have to ask for unanimous consent in
    order for it to be referred to us sequentially. We are going to
    explore that. We will explore that with the Democratic and
    Republican leadership.
        As you know, yesterday we tried to get unanimous consent
    just to go to conference and to take the House-passed budget
    resolution and the Senate-passed budget resolution, go to
    conference and try to figure out a compromise to get our
    deficit headed in the right direction. We could not get that
    done. One person was able to object and to kill that. So we
    need to find out for sure what the situation is there.
        On the second issue, there are--let me just say with
    respect to the tragedy that occurred in Boston, as much as we
    mourn the death of three people and the mayhem that has touched
    the lives of 250 other people who have been injured, a lot of
    good was done by the FBI, by the CIA, by Homeland Security, by
    the State and local police. We have asked a bunch of questions,
    Senator Coburn and I asked page after page after page of
    questions of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
    Security that relate specifically to that. We are going to get
    those responses. We are going to get them in a timely way. And
    when we do, at an appropriate time, working together, we will
    figure out when to hold hearings, with your input and others,
    in some cases maybe classified hearings, in other cases
    unclassified hearings. But the idea there is to, as I said
    earlier, figure out what we can do to help, whether it is the
    situation on the northern border, the southern border,
    situations like in Kentucky, Boston, what can we do to make
    more effective, better leverage the assets, human and other
    assets, that we have. But I like your spirit, and we want to
    work with you and with our other colleagues to figure out how
    we can play the constructive role that I know we all want to
    play.
        We are going to have a vote here at noon, and I talked with
    Dr. Coburn, and I think I am going to stay here and keep things
    rolling. If we start the vote, he is going to go vote, come
    back, and then I will vote and return. If anyone wants to ask a
    second round of questions, we will have that opportunity, and I
    would invite you to do that.
        Let me just start my second round by acknowledging--we have
    already talked about this--the job that is done along our
    southern borders and our northern borders to try to slow, stop
    the movement of people illegally, the movement of drugs and
    contraband illegally, it is not easy. I was down there in
    pretty good weather, but as Senator McCain says, sometimes the
    temperature is 120 degrees. Sometimes it rains. Sometimes it is
    cold, especially up on the northern border. Sometimes people
    are taking shots at you. Sometimes people are throwing rocks at
    you. This is not an easy job for folks.
        And I will say this: The people that I have met, both on
    the northern border that are doing this work for us and the
    people on the southern border, for the most part they are
    enthusiastic, they are proud of the work they do. They are
    intent on doing it better. They want us to figure out how to
    make it more effective, and that is a big part of what we are
    doing. So we applaud their service.
        I want to come back, if I can, to the issue of technology
    deployed along our borders to help, to serve as a force
    multiplier. And we have talked about the VADER system. We have
    four drones. One of them has a VADER system installed. It is a
    borrowed system--a borrowed system from a private company. We
    have a dozen or so--more than a dozen C206 single-engine
    aircraft. I believe one of them is outfitted for surveillance,
    to do sophisticated surveillance work. That is like my OP-3
    airplane going out there without the ability to acoustically
    detect submarines, visually submarines--well, maybe visually we
    could--without radar, without intercepts. I mean, it is like
    going out with binoculars looking for a submarine. And that is
    what we are doing with our C206s, and too often it is what we
    are doing with the drones that do not have the VADER system on
    them.
        We have deployed in places, I think in Afghanistan,
    lighter-than-air, I will call them ``dirigibles,'' lighter-
    than-air assets, blimps. Some of them can carry sophisticated
    surveillance equipment; maybe some cannot. And we have the
    ability to deploy land-based systems, whether they happen to be
    handheld radars or handheld surveillance or truck-mounted where
    you can elevate them or just ground-mount them. I think there
    is something called the Tethered Aerostat Radar (TAR) system
    which we have some of the ground-mounted, elevated radars and
    observation posts. Any one of these by itself is not going to
    work everywhere, and part of what we need to do is figure out
    where the highest risk is and go after those first.
        And, second, of the kind of technology and the assets that
    are available to complement our ground forces, figuring out,
    one, where is the greatest risk and which particular technology
    is most appropriate in a given area of our border. It ain't
    rocket science. And in the past we have had the real problem of
    not having the resources. We are going to have the resources.
    We have to fill this sense of urgency and providing those
    resources and making sure that you have thought through, with
    our input and certainly with the input of our appropriators,
    led by Senator Landrieu, to make sure--and I think--it is Dan
    Coats? Senator Coats, who are the Chair and Ranking Member of
    the Appropriations Subcommittee.
        The other thing I am going to say, and then I am going to
    ask a question. Somehow we have to do a better job of conveying
    not just to the folks in Mexico that want to come to our
    country to work, but the people in El Salvador, Honduras,
    Guatemala, and other countries where their lives are not very
    pleasant right now, and it is because of squeezing that bubble,
    squeezing that balloon, we are seeing a lot of the work, the
    cartels heading south and making lives in those countries
    miserable. And they are looking for a way to get out, and
    Mexicans do not want them to stay in their country, so they
    just come through Mexico, come on across our borders in places
    that are tough to detect them.
        Somehow we have to do a better job conveying to people in
    those countries where people are still coming out, the other-
    than-Mexicans, that it is a tough journey, there is a good
    chance you will get caught. If we catch you, the experience you
    are going to have in this country is not pleasant. And if you
    come back again, it is going to be even less pleasant if we
    catch you. We have to make sure that our employers know that if
    you are trying to hire illegal aliens, you are doing it
    knowingly, we are going to find you out and we are going to
    punish you. We are going to find you and imprison you if it is
    a repeat kind of occurrence.
        And the other thing we need to do, we need to do a better
    job of conveying to the folks that live in these countries
    where they are coming north the risks that they face--the risk
    that they will not get through, the risk that if they do, it
    will not be a pleasant experience, the risk that they will be
    shot, murdered, drowned, raped. We have to do a much better job
    of conveying what it is really like. It is kind of like a
    ``Scared Straight'' approach for those countries, and we have
    to be smart about the way that we do it.
        Chief Fisher, right now what is our effectiveness rate in
    high-risk border sectors as defined by the bill that Senator
    McCain and others have worked on? Let me just ask you that.
    What is our effectiveness rate in the high-risk border sectors
    as defined by the bill?
        Mr. Fisher. It is approximately between 80 and 85 percent,
    sir.
        Chairman Carper. All right. And just to make this simple
    for people to understand, let us say we are at the border, we
    are looking for people who try to get through, and what we
    really need to make this work, I think, is the ability to--it
    is almost like a quarterback coming out of the huddle. You can
    look at the defense, and you see the whole field. But it is the
    ability to see the whole field, and that is folks coming to our
    border, and to be able to almost count them, almost have the
    ability to count them. And we will say on a good day you can
    see 100 people coming. And we need to know not only how many
    are coming to cross our borders; we need to know how many are
    going to be turned back, and that is not easy to do, but it is
    not impossible. We need to know how many we have apprehended.
    And then the rest are those that are got-aways. But we need to
    measure better three things: one, how many people are trying to
    get across the border; two, how many people are turned back;
    and the rest sort of takes care of itself.
        And part of our challenge is to figure out how to measure
    those that are trying to get across and those that turn back.
    The rest we can figure out. But I think some of the technology
    we are talking about can do that.
        Let me followup on my question, Chief, by asking this: How
    close do you think we are to achieving persistent surveillance
    in some of those sectors?
        Mr. Fisher. Along the southern border, taking into
    consideration both the eyes-on 24/7 and some of those areas in
    the urban areas, and with situational awareness, it is going to
    take probably at least another year or two as we continue to
    mature both in terms of systems that we have, optimizing that
    capability, and continuing to see and leverage geospatial
    intelligence to try to understand how that may help us in the
    situational awareness area.
        And if I could, Mr. Chairman, I want to qualify my earlier
    statement in terms of--I was trying to reconcile the way you
    asked the question in terms of the way the bill is identified
    in those high-risk areas. There is one area in South Texas
    specifically that is not within that range that I stated
    previously, that 80-85 percent----
        Chairman Carper. Which one?
        Mr. Fisher. South Texas, which basically takes into
    consideration the area, I believe, that you recently saw down
    in Rio Grande Valley.
        Chairman Carper. Rio Grande, yes.
        Mr. Fisher. That one is actually below 80. It is about 78,
    79 percent. So I do not want to be misleading in my earlier
    statement.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thanks.
        Dr. Coburn, I am going to run and vote. I will be back.
        Senator Coburn. [Presiding.] Let me go back to you, Chief,
    for a minute. How do you come up with the denominator? You told
    us how you calculate an effectiveness rate--where is the
    character quality of the denominator?
        Mr. Fisher. The denominator----
        Senator Coburn. You do not have that, actually, do you? You
    do not know every attempted crossing into this country.
        Mr. Fisher. I do not.
        Senator Coburn. That is right. So, therefore, the
    denominator is meaningless if you do not know the numbers.
        Mr. Fisher. The entries, which is the denominator, sir, is
    basically the apprehensions plus the turnbacks plus the got-
    aways. In areas where we have dense deployments, both in terms
    of personnel and technology, we have a better accounting of
    what the flow is at any given time.
        Senator Coburn. Well, but wait a minute. That is the
    apprehensions, the turnbacks, and the got-aways. That has
    nothing to do with the ones you do not know.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir, and that is where the geospatial
    intelligence, utilizing our organic resources, helps us
    understand.
        Senator Coburn. I know, but here is the point I want to
    make----
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Senator Coburn. If that legislation is going to pass, that
    denominator is going to have to be determined in finite terms
    and that is where the geospatial is going to help you, right?
        Mr. Fisher. It will, Senator. It is my belief that it will,
    yes.
        Senator Coburn. And do you not agree, if you have a varying
    denominator, then you are not going to have a constant look at
    what your percentage is going to be? So you have to know what
    that denominator is. For 90 percent to mean something, that
    means the denominator has to mean something, and it has to be
    real. And it cannot just be what you know. It has to include
    what you do not know today in terms of crossings. Correct?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, I do understand your point. First of
    all, the denominator always fluctuates. It fluctuates on a
    daily basis, and it fluctuates depending upon the section of
    the border.
        Senator Coburn. But you are missing my whole point. You do
    not really know the denominator.
        Mr. Fisher. Across 4,000 miles to the north and 2,000
    miles----
        Senator Coburn. No, you do not know.
        Mr. Fisher. I do not know.
        Senator Coburn. OK.
        Mr. Fisher. I stated that.
        Senator Coburn. So my point is, if the American public
    listens to this, we are going to determine the border is secure
    on a number that you do not know. You are going to give us a
    number, a percent, but the bottom number is--you are not going
    to know it. And that is a hole in terms of the requirements of
    this bill, and that is going to have to be addressed before
    this bill is going to be able to pass.
        Mr. Heyman. Senator, if I may, one of the things that the
    bill I think intends to do is to put great investments in some
    of the technologies the chief was talking about. We do have
    some fidelity over that number right now. The technology
    development and deployment that will be envisioned by the bill
    will build us greater capability for surveillance and detection
    for the----
        Senator Coburn. I understand----
        Mr. Heyman [continuing]. Greater fidelity. You never have
    100 percent fidelity----
        Senator Coburn [continuing]. But, remember, the emotion on
    immigration has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the
    rule of law. And first of all, where did we come up with 90
    percent says your border is controlled? Where did that come
    from? Why do we think that 90 percent says the border is
    controlled if 10 percent is not?
        Mr. Heyman. Senator, one of the things that I know
    Secretary Napolitano has said it is important not to just focus
    on one number. As a general practice, we have looked at the
    border from a number of different factors, whether it is
    apprehension, crime rates, or otherwise. And I think in some
    sense it is like the economy. We do not use just one number to
    measure how good our economy is. You do not just look at GDP.
    You look at consumer confidence, consumer spending. You look at
    jobs rates and things like that.
        I think as we are looking at the borders, as a general
    principle we should also be looking at----
        Senator Coburn. I know, but that is not what the American
    people are expecting. We are considering creating a path to
    citizenship in this bill, and it is based on the fact that the
    border is going to be controlled. That is the thing that is
    going to certify the ability to move forward on those other
    areas. And if, in fact, the American people cannot trust that
    the border is controlled, you are not going to be able to pass
    this bill. So you are going to have to help us figure out how
    to do it.
        And I would disagree. GDP measures our economy. It is the
    final result of consumer confidence, employment, investment,
    and everything else. We do look at GDP because that is the
    factor, that is the ultimate number. First of all, why is 90
    percent considered effective control of the border? I would
    like for somebody to explain to me why 90 percent is effective
    control of the border. And, No. 2, how are you going to come up
    with an effective denominator? Because you are not going to
    sell the vast majority of Americans on immigration reform until
    you sell them the confidence that we have it under control and
    that the number does not vary; and if it does vary, we know
    that number is an actual number, a real number, not a
    guesstimate.
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, I will answer, take a stab at your two
    questions.
        First, the 90 percent, when I was with the staff developing
    the implementation for our new strategy, we were setting
    strategic objectives, and one of the measures against the
    strategic objectives specifically about being able to protect
    this country, is we stated at or in excess of 90 percent. It
    was not 90 percent. In other words, we were setting a strategic
    goal to be able to take the capabilities that we have had over
    the last few years and how do we optimize that capability and
    how do we measure that. That has been an effort, an ongoing
    effort for the last 3 years. It is not the only metric. It is
    taken with a whole host of other measures that we look at to
    assess risk. It is not just about 90 percent. So 90 percent was
    the minimum, and when I was asked the question previously--
    actually, my staff asked the question, ``Well, Chief, why is it
    at or in excess of 90 percent?'' And I said, ``Basically, it is
    because it is an A.'' It is an A. If you are going to set a
    goal for border security and national security, anything less
    than, at a minimum, 90 percent would be untenable in terms of a
    goal.
        Senator Coburn. Why 90 percent? Why not 98 percent? In
    other words, here is my point. If we are going to get
    immigration reform through, if you are going to get it through
    the House, we are going to have to do a whole lot more on what
    is the definition of a controlled border than what is in this
    bill.
        Mr. Fisher. I agree with you there, Senator, yes.
        Senator Coburn. Or we are not going to get it. It is not
    going to happen. You are not going to have the votes for it. So
    if, in fact, we really want this to happen, we have to start
    addressing this now. And you cannot have any false observations
    on this.
        The political reality is the American people want to know
    the border is controlled, and when we say 90 percent it is
    controlled, they are saying, well, that means 10 percent of it
    is not. That is the first thing that goes through most
    Oklahomans' heads, so why is 90 percent the number?
        So I do not know that the number means that much. I agree
    with you. The fact is why don't we have a secure border. And
    what is a secure border, and how do you measure that? And that
    is one of the questions Senator McCain asked the Secretary.
    What does it mean? What is a secure border? And how do we
    demonstrate that? Where are the metrics that actually show
    that? I will not spend any more time on it.
        Mr. Heyman, let me ask you, you said in your opening
    statement--and I do not think you meant this, but you said it.
    ``We screen all cargo.'' Did you mean to say we screen all
    cargo?
        Mr. Heyman. Yes, Senator. Screening has to do with our--we
    take a look at all cargo coming into the United States. We
    evaluate it for its risk, and we make a judgment at that point
    what is the next step. Some of the cargo that is high risk we
    will then----
        Senator Coburn. Screen.
        Mr. Heyman [continuing]. Scan. And then there is
    terminology here, so screening has to do with the vetting in
    effect of all of the cargo that comes to the United States----
        Senator Coburn. Well, that is a very different meaning than
    what your testimony actually implied, because the American
    people need to know right now we are not screening all cargo.
        Mr. Heyman. We screen all cargo. We do not scan all cargo.
        Senator Coburn. We make a judgment about whether or not it
    should be scanned, and that is what you are calling
    ``screening.'' And that is very much different--because there
    is no assurance there. It is an assurance on the judgment of
    somebody--of whether or not the cargo should have been scanned
    and should have been investigated more. I just want to be real
    clear because I do not want the American people--as a matter of
    fact, Congresswoman Hahn is very concerned about that, and we
    are working with her on it in terms of screening cargo and port
    security related to that. So I just wanted to clear----
        Mr. Heyman. Yes, we do----
        Senator Coburn [continuing]. The nomenclature up. I
    understood what you meant, but the American people will not.
    When you say we screen all cargo, they are thinking all the
    cargo has been checked to make sure that there is no problem
    with it.
        Mr. Heyman. We do have a risk-based approach where we make
    sure to evaluate all cargo against potential risks, and we
    triage that to say which ones do we need to inspect, which ones
    do we need to open, and we do that for all the cargo coming
    into the United States.
        I just wanted to make another point on--I know we finished
    the discussion on metrics. I might want to just add one other
    point on that.
        Senator Coburn. OK.
        Mr. Heyman. Because if you look at one of the things we are
    doing, where we are today after years of work and investments
    on border security, we do have, in effect, a net zero
    immigration flow, which is another net metric that people could
    look at. And I think one of the things that is really
    important, as I was saying, is that there are a lot of things
    that are important as we talk about border security, whether it
    is the border crime rate, whether it is seizures at the border,
    whether it is immigration flows. And we will work with you on
    this because it is important.
        Senator Coburn. Well, they are all better, and I
    congratulate you, because I think all the agencies have done a
    much better job. We have better numbers than what we have ever
    had before. I do not disagree with it. The question is whether
    or not it is adequate, because if we had 98 percent control,
    and the 2 percent control were terrorists, we would not think
    that was control. So it is not just the number. It is who is in
    that number that got away that we did not catch that could
    actually cause us harm.
        So it is important you help us refine this as this goes
    through the legislative process so that we can actually build
    that assurance in there.
        Mr. Heyman. We will work with you, sir. This is too
    important not to.
        Senator Coburn. I have one other question. When somebody
    leaves the country that is here on a visa, that is pinged back
    to a list, correct? Everybody that is leaving this country on
    an outgoing visa.
        Mr. Heyman. Yes.
        Mr. McAleenan. That is correct.
        Senator Coburn. So why is the entry-exit visa so
    problematic in terms of cost that when we are already having
    this going to a central computer, why--explain the technologic
    problems and the cost problems that you said in your opening
    statement? Because I do not get it. If we are already capturing
    the data but we are just not using it on the exit visa program,
    why not?
        Mr. Heyman. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the
    opportunity to elaborate on that.
        What I was describing in my opening statement is the
    congressional requirement post-9/11 which asks for a
    biometrically based system, which is one which uses either
    fingerprints or iris scans and things like that. That is what
    is costly. The ability to deploy that, where you deploy it in
    the airport and how you deploy it and the labor cost is where
    that $3 billion cost comes from.
        That is where Secretary Napolitano said, well, we have to
    have something in place now. We cannot wait for the costs to go
    down, although we should continue to research that, and we are.
        Senator Coburn. Right.
        Mr. Heyman. And so she directed us to do an electronic
    entry-exit system based upon the current biographical
    information. So we take your information from your passport
    when you enter. It goes into the database. And when you depart
    the country, that is matched. A match indicates that somebody
    has left. A non-match past the duration of one's visa
    requirements means that you are an overstay or a potential
    overstay, and we have to look into that.
        Up until a couple years ago, the systems that do all of
    that, which there are many across the Department, and that look
    at resolving whether somebody is, in fact, an overstay, that
    was all done manually. And we have in the last 2 years
    automated that process, linked up the databases to do the
    vetting for national security and public safety, moved that
    into a place right now, as of April of this year, where near
    real time now we are sending on a daily basis to ICE for action
    the folks who have----
        Senator Coburn. Overstayed.
        Mr. Heyman [continuing]. Likely overstayed. So that is a
    much more cost-effective way of doing it.
        Senator Coburn. I agree.
        Mr. Heyman. It is electronically based, and it is in place
    today. We will be improving it over the next year.
        Senator Coburn. Thanks for clarifying that. Senator
    Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Coburn.
        First of all, I truly want to thank you for your service. I
    realize these are enormous challenges, extremely difficult. And
    I also agree with Senator Paul. The purpose here is we need to
    fix our legal immigration system. We need to solve this
    problem. I want to see an immigration bill pass. But certainly,
    as I talk to members of the public, there is a high degree of
    skepticism about securing the border, and I am concerned about
    this particular bill where it is more focused on a process or
    more focused on who is going to certify whether the border is
    secure as opposed to actually passing a bill that secures the
    border. So I would kind of like to go back to where I started
    my questioning in terms of the history of trying to secure the
    border. We have been trying to do this now for 30 or 40 years.
    We obviously have not succeeded, and, again, I am sure it is
    because we have not tried, but what is the enormity of the
    challenge? Have we simply not put the resources toward it? Is
    it just too big a problem we will never be able to solve? And I
    would kind of like to just go down the panel. Why haven't we
    been able to? And, really, what are the prospects of actually
    being able to secure the border in the next 5 or 10 years?
    Secretary Heyman.
        Mr. Heyman. Yes, thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
    support of this legislation and the reform that will go
    forward.
        One of the things that this bill does which has not been
    done in 30 years is it takes a comprehensive approach. You have
    to address the number of things that are broken in the system,
    and you cannot just address one of them.
        To begin with, you have a magnet of jobs in the U.S.
    economy that attracts individuals. These are jobs that are, in
    effect, off the books because illegitimate travelers coming to
    the United States who are not lawfully present can go to
    businesses that are gaming the system by hiring people who are
    legally present. The bill addresses that through----
        Senator Johnson. But let me just stop you, because part of
    the concern--I totally agree with you. You have really got two
    demands here. You have the drug trafficking. You have the
    workers that are required. Does this bill even come close to
    providing enough temporary work visas to fulfill that demand?
        Mr. Heyman. So there are a number of different ways you are
    addressing this in the bill. One is to streamline our visa
    opportunities for individuals to come here, whether it is
    agricultural visitors, guest workers as it were, whether it is
    high-tech employment or otherwise. That is one way of
    satisfying it.
        The other way is to take away the demand signal by saying
    it is illegal to do that and every business be required to do
    an E-Verify check to verify lawful presence in the United
    States. So if you are coming here and you are trying to get a
    job, you better make sure you are lawfully present.
        Senator Johnson. What happens when people verify employment
    and then businesses still cannot fill the positions? What
    happens at that point with this law?
        Mr. Heyman. When businesses cannot fill positions----
        Senator Johnson. By the way, that is a common thread when I
    am traveling around Wisconsin and I talk to employers. They
    simply cannot fill good-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector
    today. Even with high levels of unemployment, we are not
    filling those.
        Mr. Heyman. Yes, these are levels that are set in law. This
    is a continuous debate and discussion year to year as
    businesses continue to compete for the best labor that they can
    get.
        One of the things that I think we need to continue to do is
    to invest in our own resources at home, our own labor at home,
    particularly on the high-tech jobs, investing in science and
    education that allows us to grow our own citizenry's skill sets
    so that we can fulfill those jobs in the absence of
    immigration.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Let me move down the panel and just
    kind of go back to my original question. What has prevented us
    and what are the prospects moving forward?
        Mr. McAleenan. First, I agree with the Assistant Secretary
    on the need for a comprehensive solution. In terms of your
    question, Senator, on the enormity of the problem, just to give
    you a quick vignette that I think highlights the overall
    picture, 225 million people are crossing our land border each
    year, critical to our North American economy, our partnership
    with Canada and Mexico. Prior to the creation of CBP, about 5
    percent of those people were actually queried and checked in
    the law enforcement system. They could cross with up to 6,000
    different types of documents--State IDs, birth certificates,
    you name it.
        In 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Department of Homeland
    Security implemented the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
    The first step was a policy decision that only five documents
    would be acceptable for crossing the international border. The
    second part was implementing technology that would enable us to
    check those documents quickly and make sure that somebody was
    secure as they crossed the border. That is license plate
    readers, radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, and
    new primary systems.
        The implementation of that took hundreds of millions of
    dollars and several years but has dramatically changed the
    border. We now query well over 98 percent of all people
    crossing the land border. We have reduced fraudulent document
    attempts. We have increased arrests and increased security
    without slowing down that traffic. That is the kind of thing we
    have to do.
        Senator Johnson. Let me quickly move on, because I just
    wanted to ask one more basic question. Again, when Secretary
    Napolitano was before us very early, 2 years ago, I asked her:
    ``Do you have enough resources? What would it cost to secure
    the border?'' And she said she had enough resources.
        I am not quite sure of that, so I do not know. Is it a
    matter of resources? And then, second, have you ever been
    tasked with the job of saying this is what we need to do to
    secure the border, actually come up with the plan? I mean, if
    we need more fence, this is how many miles of fence we have to
    build, this is how high it needs to be, this is how it has to
    be constructed. If we need more boots on the ground, this is
    how many boots we need on the ground.
        Have you ever been tasked with that? And if not, is that
    your understanding of what is going to be required with this
    bill? Finally come up with that plan which I guess I would be
    kind of scratching my head if we have been trying to do this
    for 30, 40 years, why don't we have that plan in place right
    now?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator Johnson, I came back to Washington, DC,
    to serve again at the headquarters component 3 years ago, and
    over the last 3 years--and it was something that Senator Coburn
    mentioned, and really probably within the last 6 months,
    specific hearings on asking the very question that even the
    Chairman had mentioned: What does it mean to have a secure
    border?
        Now, we have defined that because, as we were transitioning
    our strategy, we identified what that meant to us in our
    implementation, and we will be able to adjust to that,
    depending upon what the end state looks like. Within our own
    strategy, when we look at the implementation, what is the end
    state, it is not a static position. It is not something that on
    1 day it is secure and the next day it is not. It is more
    predicated on evolving threats and what that risk is at any
    given time to this country.
        And so the next question I was asked was: ``Chief, tell us
    when the border is going to be secured.'' And my general
    response to that is: ``When there are no more bad people
    looking to come into this country illegally between the ports
    of entry.'' That is the only time that I would feel comfortable
    to come before this Committee and others and suggest that the
    border is definitively secured. It is not an easy process. I do
    not offer it even in the context of an effectiveness ratio,
    that somehow this is a scientific method and that I can assure
    the Chairman and this Committee or the American people that at
    any given time we will be able--on 4,000 miles on the northern
    border and 2,000 miles on the southern border, be able to say
    with 100 percent certainty the amount of people that enter, and
    of that number, how many people we apprehend. The terrain does
    not allow it. The vastness within our borders does not allow
    us. However, that does not mean we cannot accomplish that.
        Senator Johnson. But, again, I understand that, but have
    you ever been tasked with the challenge of laying out a plan? I
    mean, basically a dream list----
        Mr. Fisher. Yes.
        Senator Johnson. And do we already have that in place? Can
    we review that?
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir. Our Strategic Plan of 2012-16 was
    published last May when the first year of implementation--it is
    certainly available to you and your staff, and I would love to
    give you a personal briefing on that if you are interested,
    sir, and to give you insight into what implementation looks
    like to include the measures that we have been putting together
    over this past year.
        Senator Johnson. So if that is already in place, why are we
    looking at this bill to develop another plan? I mean, why
    aren't we looking at that and implementing that with this piece
    of legislation?
        Mr. Fisher. Our strategy, just to be clear, only takes into
    consideration between the ports of entry. We are working within
    both the CBP and the Department's strategic plan and the
    guiding principles that are set forth in the Quadrennial
    Homeland Security Review (QHSR). Those are all nested together.
    That is why in the earlier question I felt comfortable that the
    timelines within the current draft bill suggest that
    implementation is doable, because a lot of that work is done.
    It is just a matter of integrating those and then identifying
    the definitive end state that defines whether or not the border
    is secure or not and what those parameters or what those
    indicators are to help us gauge whether, in fact, we do need
    more resources, whether we have to shift resources from one
    area to the other.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. [Presiding.] Those are all good questions.
    I just want to say thank you so much for coming early and
    staying late yet again--as we all are.
        One of the things that I am just going to walk back in time
    a little bit with you, if I could, before I ask another
    question or two, during the 8 years I was privileged to be
    Governor of Delaware, I would submit an operating capital
    budget to the legislature, and my Cabinet was expected to
    defend the budget. And if they went to a hearing and said,
    well, Secretary X, Y, or Z, this is what Governor Carper has
    suggested be allocated to your department, and for them to sit
    there and say, ``Oh, no, that is not right. This is what we
    really need,'' we would have been looking for new cabinet
    secretaries. And for every President I have seen here since
    Ronald Reagan right up through President Obama, there is a
    similar kind of discipline at work. And if you have a chance as
    a Cabinet Secretary to say, ``These are the resources we would
    like to have, financial, human and otherwise,'' and when the
    President submits the budget, you are expected to defend the
    budget, whether it is a Democrat or Republican President. And
    part of our job is to ask tough questions so that we can
    actually ferret out where the real resources should be
    allocated.
        The fortunate thing here, we are going to have some money.
    We are going to have some real money. We are going to collect
    fees. There are a number of fees called for in the proposal by
    the Gang of Eight, fees proposed by the President. We are going
    to have some resources. And the key is for us to allocate those
    resources where the risk is the greatest, where the payoff is
    the best; and, second, to make sure that we are looking to see
    what works and what is appropriate for a particular sector and
    do more of that and find out what does not work and do less of
    that.
        Senator Johnson. If I could request, though, as long as
    this plan is already in place, I think it would be an extremely
    interesting hearing to have a hearing simply on that. Let us
    take a look at the current plan that the Border Patrol actually
    has in place, and let us evaluate that and see if we cannot
    throw that into the bill.
        Chairman Carper. And, actually, if you look at what is in
    the Gang of Eight suggestions and the Administration, one of
    the things that is in the plan for the Department is do not
    just look at the areas between ports of entry, the big ports of
    entry. Put some resources in the ports of entry, where you have
    thousands of trucks, cars, vehicles, people, pedestrians coming
    through, and so that is part of their plan, and actually I
    think that is one of the things that we will do. But you are
    right. This is a shared responsibility, shared by the
    Administration, hopefully enlightened by our experiences, our
    visits, our backgrounds and so forth, our staff, and I am
    encouraged that we are going to do some really smart things.
        Will it ever be 100 percent? I do not think so. Can it be
    perfect? Probably not. But can we do a better job? You bet we
    can. And our goal, I think, is if it is not perfect, make it
    better. And we are getting a lot of good ideas here, and I
    think there is just a good spirit here. I am encouraged with
    what I am hearing and from both sides of this dais.
        I have a couple of questions I want to ask, and, Senator
    Johnson, you are welcome to stay longer if you would like. It
    is your call.
        I want to go look at the issue of visa overstays. Most of
    us, most people you ask, most people in this country, do you
    think--how serious a problem is it when people come to this
    country, they are legal, they are here on a student visa, a
    tourist visa, maybe a worker visa or whatever, and they simply
    overstay, not just their welcome, but their legal limit? And as
    it turns out, there are a bunch of people that fall in that
    category, and my understanding is that number is rising. It is
    not like 5, 10, or 20 percent of those that are here illegally.
    We could be talking about as many as 30 or 40 percent.
        Can anybody try to give me a number on that? Again, we are
    calling them visa overstays. How significant a problem is it?
    Go ahead.
        Mr. Heyman. I will take that and, Dan, if you want to
    comment, too.
        Senator, you ask a great question. It is a question that
    people have asked going back 20, 30 years, which is there an
    interest in the Federal Government in publishing visa overstay
    numbers, and we talked a little earlier--you may have been out
    at a vote--about how we do identify and track overstays, what
    is the system for doing it. It is basically matching an entry
    and an exit record electronically and then running it against
    some databases to ensure that the person has either left the
    country or still resides in the United States.
        That process for identifying and tracking overstays has
    been one that has been long coming, and there have been a
    number of requests by Congress to identify that system, to
    develop that system. And it has only been within the last 2\1/
    2\ years probably that we have actually been able to build a
    system that allows us to have the fidelity of that data so that
    we can actually publish it. It has not been published yet. We
    have committed to getting those numbers out by the end of this
    year for the first time in the government's history. We have
    done that by an entire Department working together to automate
    the system of tracking entries and exits, linking up the
    databases, improving our matching algorithms, and we will be
    able to publish that information later this year.
        Chairman Carper. It would be nice if you could give us some
    insights on that question before the end of this year.
        Mr. Ragsdale, do you want to add something?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I would just like to add, one of the
    advantages of a comprehensive immigration reform perspective is
    matching visa categories with the demand, having a worksite
    enforcement regime where there is tough enforcement, so there
    is not a magnet for folks to overstay, and then a codification
    of priorities that, when folks overstay, we will be able to
    quickly identify and remove them. So it is the balance that
    this bill posits that we think could be effective going
    forward.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Are these overstays--here is an idea,
    and Senator Johnson and I may have discussed this before, but I
    just want to share it with you all here again today. In my old
    job as Governor of Delaware, we used to start parenting
    training literally when a newborn baby came into this world in
    a hospital. We did followup parenting training in thousands of
    homes, sending out parenting trainers to those homes,
    especially in high-risk situations, to make sure moms and dads
    had the skills that they needed. We provide I will call it, a
    5-year calendar, like a Cliff Notes on how to raise your baby
    in terms of checkups, immunizations, food, diet, all kinds of
    things for the first 5 years, sort of like 5 years Cliff Notes
    for raising your newborn baby.
        We have much smarter ways to do this sort of thing now.
    Johnson & Johnson has come up with something called ``Text for
    Baby,'' and it is the ability to send to a new mom or dad on
    their phone, using texting, reminders: You have a doctor's
    checkup coming up in 2 weeks. Or you have a doctor's checkup
    coming up tomorrow. Immunization, your baby should be getting
    this immunization today, tomorrow, next week, next month. Just
    all kinds of things using Text for Baby. Almost everybody,
    especially younger people, have cell phones. They do a lot of
    texting anyway. This is just a good tool, a very cost-
    effective--sort of like a digital solution or digital successor
    to what we were doing with paper 15 years ago.
        One of the ideas that I heard when I was down on the border
    somewhere on this was an idea that why don't we do a similar
    thing with people who are here legally but not forever. They
    are not here on permanent status. They are a student, they are
    a visitor, they are a tourist, they are a worker. And just send
    them a reminder, text them: You have a month to go on your
    visa. You have 2 weeks to go. You have a week to go. You have a
    day to go. And the idea that people know that we know that they
    are here, we know that their time is running out, and we are
    watching them, and that could probably do something positive.
    We are talking about a lot of technology, of stuff up in the
    air. There is one that might use the airwaves, but in a
    different kind of way.
        On ports of entry, we have already talked a little bit
    about that. But we are talking about 3,500 new officers at
    ports of entry. What can you all tell us about how those
    officers might be deployed and what concrete improvements we
    could expect to see in border security and legal trade and
    travel? For instance, where are some of the longest crossing
    delays on the southwest border? And how much could we hope to
    reduce those times? Who would like to take a shot at that? Yes?
        Mr. McAleenan. Thank you, Chairman. I will take a shot at
    that. As a former Acting Assistant Commissioner for Field
    Operations, and to Senator Johnson's question, have we ever
    been asked what do we need resource-wise to secure and
    facilitate legitimate trade and travel, that was the question
    that we were asked with the workload staffing model and the
    resource optimization strategy that we submitted with the
    fiscal year 2014 budget. It identifies the need for 3,477
    officers at ports of entry, and they would be deployed based on
    the greatest need. That is determined by the workload, by the
    enforcement results, and by growth of facilities, and also
    risk. So it is a combined formula that is incorporated in the
    model, and we have some significant wait time challenges, as
    you noted, Mr. Chairman. In the air environment, we have seen
    air traffic grow 4 percent a year for 3 years in a row. It is
    expected to hit that mark again. We are going to see over 100
    million international air travelers. And the wait times have
    grown commensurate with that, even non-linearly above the
    traffic growth. So we need to keep pace. We have available
    booths, we have infrastructure at the airports, and we want to
    put additional staff there to lower the wait times.
        The sequestration experience gave us an example of what
    happens if we cut staff. The wait times have gone up
    dramatically in many of our major airports during peak periods,
    and we would like to counterbalance that, not only getting back
    to our current level but to go beyond that with the proposals
    in the 2014 budget.
        On the land border, being able to staff all booths at our
    key crossings, not only during the peak period but leading up
    to that peak and extending beyond it, will balance out our
    ability to process that traffic, reduce wait times, like we are
    seeing at San Ysidro, up to 4 hours right now on certain high-
    traffic days. We need to get those down as we commit to our
    trusted travelers getting a shorter crossing of 15 minutes or
    less.
        Chairman Carper. OK. In terms of best bang for the buck,
    let me just followup on your response. Anybody else is welcome
    to answer this. But in terms of best bang for the buck, force
    multipliers, investments in whether it is in technology or
    infrastructure at the ports of entry, best bang for the buck.
    We saw gamma ray devices. We saw portable handhelds, that they
    are able to--literally, as the truck came through, made the
    entry of somebody sent to the officer who was going to later
    talk to the driver. They literally had in their handheld pretty
    much the history of the vehicle, their visits to the border,
    the driver's visits to the border. Really impressive stuff. But
    let me just say, just some of the ideas, technology ideas, it
    could be handhelds, it could be others, the ability to detect
    radiation in really smart ways, but what are some of the best
    force multipliers with the technology and infrastructure that
    we are looking at these ports of entry?
        Mr. McAleenan. Well, you hit on two of them right there,
    Senator: The mobile technology, we have a proposal in the 2014
    budget for increased mobile technology. That takes our system
    and support right to where the officer is doing the work, not
    chaining them to a fixed terminal.
        Additionally, the improved non-intrusive inspection (NII)
    equipment, like our Z-portals where we can run vehicles through
    at very low levels, but still be able to detect any anomalies.
        And then the third thing that is in the budget that is
    critical is the concept of pedestrian re-engineering, using
    kiosks so that when a pedestrian approaches our officer, they
    have already had their documents checked, they have already had
    their system checks run, so we can process them about 30
    percent faster, shorten those lines and get people moving more
    quickly with advanced technology.
        Chairman Carper. I would just say to Senator Johnson, my
    time has expired, and I am going to yield back to you. But in
    terms of your point earlier, we want the Department, if you
    will, to tell us what their plans are. And I think what we are
    hearing is something that actually makes sense to me, seems
    intuitive, and it looks like we will have some resources. They
    have a plan. A lot of this meets the common-sense test, so I
    think we might be on to something here. Senator Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. I just have a quick question, and I have
    not been down on the border with you, but that was one of the
    first trips I did make, down to Nogales, and my impression was,
    first of all, inadequate fencing. I could not believe--and we
    did not have exactly the high ground there, either. But, we saw
    the beautiful port of entry that was being constructed, but
    certainly the input from the agents was, OK, we have the
    infrastructure, we do not have the manpower. So just very
    quickly to you in terms of your plan, you say you wanted
    close--was it 3,400? Where are we at right now?
        Mr. McAleenan. Our total staffing nationally is 21,775.
    That is the----
        Senator Johnson. But in terms of port of entry. You were
    talking about a plan that you needed thirty-four--what, 3,474?
    I cannot remember the exact number.
        Mr. McAleenan. Yes, the numbers are very similar between
    Border Patrol agents and CBP officers. It is 21,370 for Border
    Patrol agents, 21,775 for CBP officers. So it would be a
    significant increase, about 17, 18 percent of our staff.
        Senator Johnson. OK, and that you think would actually
    accomplish the objective?
        Mr. McAleenan. That would help us catch up with the
    tremendous growth in trade and travel and secure that in a much
    more effective and efficient way.
        Senator Johnson. So without percentages, just numbers, how
    many additional agents do we need in the actual ports of entry
    on the one hand and then in terms of controlling the borders in
    between the ports of entry? Can you give me just numbers, what
    do you think we need, versus where we are today?
        Mr. McAleenan. Versus where we are today, we need an
    increase of roughly 3,500 CBP officers.
        Senator Johnson. OK, total. And that is ports of entry?
        Mr. McAleenan. That is for ports of entry.
        Senator Johnson. And what about in terms of in between the
    ports of entry?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, a lot of that has to do with the
    amount of technology that is going to be online here in
    September--I am sorry, in the spring and in the fall, both in
    terms of mobile video surveillance systems, we have the
    integrated fixed towers coming online, scheduled for fall; we
    have replacements for the remote video surveillance systems on
    previous pulls on the border. So a lot of that, once we start
    taking a look at getting that technology, then we take a look
    at what is the response requirement going to be in terms of
    Border Patrol agents. Once we have that last lay down on the
    technology, we will be able to assess where we have those
    Border Patrol agents.
        And the other piece, which is really critical, is the
    Deputy Commissioner mentioned the Border Patrol agent staffing
    right now is 21,370. What is more important than just whether
    that is the right number is do we have those agents in the
    right locations given our risk assessment, and the answer to
    that is no. I want to be able to have the flexibility and
    mobility with those agents to move Border Patrol agents in
    areas that we have already identified as low risk, and I think
    given the measures in some of those areas like El Paso Sector
    and Yuma Sector, be able to move Border Patrol agents from one
    location to the other, which may not require an additional
    increase of 21,370, but a re-evaluation of if we have those
    Border Patrol agents in the right location.
        Senator Johnson. So why do you not have the flexibility
    now. Why not?
        Mr. Fisher. For a couple of reasons. One is the money that
    is required to move Border Patrol agents en masse. I am talking
    hundreds of Border Patrol agents from one location to the
    other. It was not available in 2013, and it does not look like
    at this point it is going to be available in 2014. The other
    thing is----
        Senator Johnson. So it is a resource issue as opposed to
    policy issue.
        Mr. Fisher. Well, part of it is a resource issue. The other
    piece, too, because the vast majority of Border Patrol agents
    that I would want to move from one location to the other are
    part of the bargaining unit, so it would require bargaining
    unit negotiations. And the other piece also is that we just do
    not have the ability overnight to move wholesale all of those
    Border Patrol agents into those locations and maintain them in
    that location for a long period of time. These would be
    permanent moves as opposed to just a short 30-to 60-day
    temporary assignment, which we do currently.
        Senator Johnson. Now, I certainly understand when I ask
    questions, do you have enough resources and people needed to
    defend budgets, I mean, I get that. But I will still try
    again--not in terms of dollars but manpower. I am just trying
    to get some sort of sense if we have in total 42,000 agents
    that we are talking about, right? 21 and 21. You need another
    3,500 in the ports of entry. I mean, are we talking about just
    thousands of additional agents? Or if we are going to really
    secure the border--again, realistically--because my concern is
    the American people have no faith that we will ever secure the
    border. I am just trying to get to the point, how many boots on
    the ground will it really take? Is it going to be 42,000? Is it
    going to be 50,000? Is it going to be 100,000? Can you just
    give me some sort of ballpark sense and actually kind of give
    the American people a ballpark sense of what it is going to
    really take to finally once and for all--and, again, it is
    never going to be perfect, I understand, but basically to get
    total operational control of the border, how many people will
    it take?
        Mr. Fisher. Senator, it is very difficult for me to answer
    that question directly because it really depends on what do you
    mean by ``truly securing the border'' and ``significantly
    securing the border''? That has been, I think, a lot of----
        Senator Johnson. Where you would be satisfied, where the
    American people would be satisfied, so we are not looking at
    another 10 million illegal immigrants 10 years down the road or
    we are not going to be looking at another wave.
        Mr. Fisher. Right, but I am going to go back to identifying
    what the end state is going to be, and there is basically--let
    me show you at least the pendulum in the discussion that I have
    been involved with over the last couple of years, having come
    back. One is those that when they talk about securing the
    border, in their mind, right?--and I am not talking about
    committees, by the way. I am talking about community members
    that I have talked to, I have talked to Border Patrol agents,
    and trying to get an assessment to be able to implement the
    strategy and what the end state is going to be.
        There are those that would suggest that we have to 100
    percent with certitude stop and prevent everybody coming across
    the border. If that is the end state and that is people's minds
    of operational control of border security, I have no idea what
    the boots requirements are going to be and the technology
    requirement, not to mention the financial impact to be able to
    achieve that end state. And even with unencumbered or
    unrestrained resources, even with certitude, it is going to be
    very----
        Senator Johnson. How about with the goal laid out in this
    bill, in terms of what we are talking about there? With that
    goal, how many people?
        Mr. Fisher. Right. My staff has actually been looking at
    trying to identify what the requirements are going to be under
    some of the draft legislation. Assuming that we look at, at a
    minimum, 90 percent or greater in high-risk areas and giving
    the flexibility to the Border Patrol and within CBP, to
    reallocate those resources that we already have, and to make
    sure that we optimize the capability that we have, whether it
    is technology in the air, whether it is the integration of all
    the technology, I would be at a better position to answer that
    question once that is done. But I do not have that answer right
    now, Senator, and quite frankly, I do not think it is just a
    matter of another 4,000 Border Patrol agents and, therefore,
    undefined we would be able to achieve the end state.
        Senator Johnson. OK. I understand, but I appreciate your
    working with me on this one.
        Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carper. I am going to just followup here real
    briefly on Senator Johnson's question, and I want you to be
    thinking about this. Sometimes when we hold hearings, our
    witnesses have an opportunity to give an opening statement, and
    sometimes I like to give them a chance to give a closing
    statement. We normally give you about 5 minutes for an opening
    statement. I will give you about a minute, each of you, for
    just a closing statement. It could be kind of a reflection back
    on some of the questions we have asked you, some of what you
    have heard said or not said that you would like to just--and,
    Chief Fisher, I will ask you to join us in doing this. This
    would be an audible for you, but you are pretty good at that.
        Going back to the very good line of questioning from
    Senator Johnson, I do not know that there is one number for a
    number of human bodies, personnel. I just do not know that
    there is a good number. And I do not know that there is any one
    technology, whether it happens to be a handheld, whether it
    happens to be these detectors, these gamma rays that enable us
    to look into trucks, big trucks, or whether it is our ability
    to measure radiation coming out of vehicles.
        I do not know that it is lighter than air. I do not know if
    it is drones or C206 aircraft. I do not know that it is just
    flexibility. I do not know if it is just money. It is all the
    above. And we have an opportunity here to do an all-of-the-
    above policy, and in a budget-constrained world, but in this
    case we are going to have some resources here, and to ask this
    question: What works? What do we need to do more of? Maybe what
    do we need to do a little less of?
        Part of the answer here is some of the flexibility, and one
    of the things that is tough about it, if you think about it, if
    you want to move folks who are on--the Border Patrol people
    from the eastern part of Texas over to Yuma in Arizona, they
    have families, most of them have families, and what is
    difficult is you just cannot say, ``OK, we are going to move
    you here from eastern Texas and put you over here in Yuma for
    the next 2 years. And, by the way, I know you have two or three
    kids and a spouse, but that is too bad.'' We just cannot do
    that. So there is the human-side sort of factors in here as
    well.
        So those are just a couple of comments, but I thought it
    was a very good line of questioning, and I appreciate your
    bringing it up.
        One last question I will ask, before I ask you to help me
    give the benediction, and this goes back to metrics. There has
    been a lot of discussion of metrics here, and I will not
    belabor that, but I do have a question. Based on the data that
    you have available, can you answer the question our expert
    witness posed, namely, where are the vulnerabilities for
    increased illegal immigration the largest: at the ports of
    entry, between the ports, or through visa overstays? And maybe
    if you can say of those three--ports of entry, between the
    ports, or those who came here legally but are no longer in a
    legal status--maybe give us some idea of which should be our
    top priority in terms of vulnerability, maybe No. 2, maybe No.
    3. And I do not know, Ms. Richards, it may not be a fair
    question to ask of you. If you feel like you would like to give
    it a shot, go ahead, but this is not why we brought you here.
        Ms. Richards. Yes, I think I would defer to my colleagues.
        Chairman Carper. Fair enough. Mr. Ragsdale.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Just putting it into terms of risk, obviously
    the people we know the least about would be sort of our
    greatest concern for law enforcement, so I would imagine the
    folks between the port of entry--we have certainly heard some
    conversation about folks we know very little about, so
    certainly that. At the port of entry, they obviously are
    inspected and admitted, so we know more about those folks.
    Similarly, with the folks that overstay and who was coming
    through a port of entry. So I suppose if I had to rank them--
    and, again, very difficult to talk in absolutes, but that is
    probably the ranking.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Good. Thanks. Chief.
        Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think I would
    have the Deputy Commissioner talk in terms of CBP lest I show
    my parochial answer and say it is in between the ports of
    entry. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Carper. OK. Mr. McAleenan.
        Mr. McAleenan. To that point, Mr. Chairman, I think Deputy
    Director Ragsdale laid out the different considerations and
    different environments. Between the ports of entry is obviously
    vast and uncontrolled, and we very much appreciate your visits
    to the border and your engagement with our mission and our
    personnel there. At the point of entry (POEs), it is a
    controlled environment where we do have an opportunity to
    question and query travelers entering so we know more about
    them and more about their admissibility or not.
        Obviously, I think Assistant Secretary Heyman has laid out
    the efforts on the overstays along with Deputy Director
    Ragsdale that are critical. That is why the bill attacking this
    from all angles is the best way to move forward because it
    needs to be a comprehensive solution.
        Chairman Carper. Mr. Secretary, just very briefly, please.
        Mr. Heyman. You have a choice between ports of entry or not
    ports of entry, because people who have visas do come through
    the ports of entry. And in the last few years, we have made
    significant improvement in tracking, identifying, and
    sanctioning those who are overstays, and we will continue to
    make progress on that. We have real-time ability to revoke
    visas, to put lookouts out, and to go after folks for law
    enforcement purposes. So it is the people between the ports of
    entry who are unlawfully present and who are willing to break
    the law that we have the most concern about, and that is where
    I would put my concern there.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thanks.
        Ms. Richards, I am going to come back to you, and this is a
    chance for you to give a closing statement, if you wish. And we
    have not had the opportunity to ask you as many questions, so
    you can take a minute or two, if you would like. But, again, we
    very much appreciate your being here.
        Ms. Richards. Thank you, sir. I think in closing I would
    reiterate some of the points that I made earlier. The gentlemen
    on the panel all talked about the various policies and
    procedures and things that they are putting into place, the new
    technologies, the strategic plan, the determination that they
    are making on the number of agents that they need between the
    ports and at the ports. And I go back to the necessity of doing
    those plans very carefully and in full detail.
        I think that is the way to success, for the Department to
    think through what they are doing before they spend the money,
    before they make a commitment to hire a certain number or have
    drones versus manned aircraft, I think they need to really go
    through the whole planning process very carefully first. And I
    think that they will.
        Chairman Carper. OK. Thanks. Mr. Ragsdale.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Thank you. I would just note that the
    comprehensive approach is a sensible way to go. We certainly
    understand that bringing folks into earned status will be
    helpful for the very reasons we just talked about in terms of
    finding out who they are. Certainly a worksite enforcement
    strategy that has penalties that are updated, as we see in this
    bill, as well as some criminal and civil penalties that really
    deter illegal conduct. And certainly also just the overall
    balance of sort of the labor and the visas, not only the high-
    tech but also the low-skilled so that magnet is diminished.
        And then, finally, just making sure that the balance in
    terms of resources and staffing for special agents in the
    criminal investigative area as well as the civil immigration
    enforcement side is all balanced so we take a comprehensive
    approach.
        Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you. Chief.
        Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer the first
    question you posed at the beginning of the hearing, and that
    was what would you do, how would you implement with the money
    that would be perhaps attached both in the authorization and
    the appropriations process. But before I answer that, I think
    it would be fair to tell you what our end State vision is in
    terms of our strategy.
        One is when you look at Secure Border, what does it mean in
    our current operation? It is one that reduces the likelihood of
    attack to this country; and, second, provides safety and
    security to the public.
        Within that broad context, there would be three things that
    we would continue to build within our implementation plan with
    this bill. First and foremost, it would be our ability to
    increase our detection capability, more so in the mobile
    systems as opposed to the static systems. And we are also
    leveraging with the Defense Department, with a Memorandum of
    Understanding that was recently signed last year and starting
    to get equipment that was previously purchased by the taxpayers
    that we intend to use and test for our border security mission,
    augmenting those things that we have already received within
    the Department and deployed along with long-term detection
    capability. That would be the first thing.
        The second thing--and I would just like to reiterate it--is
    flexibility to deploy and what type of technology and how we
    deploy that in different areas. We have to have that
    flexibility built in because it is not a static state.
        And the third, let us talk about capability that we within
    the Border Patrol have to get better at, and it may not be so
    much in terms of dollars but proficiency, is our ability to
    increase our analytical capability about what all the measures
    mean and how do we take all the stuff that we collect and
    leveraging both in terms of what the Department has in
    experience and what CBP has, but building greater capability to
    understand the analytical framework in which we design and
    implement our operations to really understand what the measures
    mean at the end state. But thank you for the opportunity, sir.
        Chairman Carper. Thanks for coming back and joining us
    today. Thanks so much. Mr. McAleenan.
        Mr. McAleenan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to
    agree with you first that I think we are on the right track,
    that we have many of the fundamental foundational elements in
    place across the different pieces of this, and this immigration
    reform approach gives us a chance to bring it together in a
    comprehensive way. And that is really what we need to do next.
        I appreciate again your leadership and engagement with our
    mission. I think Chief Fisher has very well covered the between
    the ports of entry aspects of what we need to do next. Thank
    you for the opportunity that you gave me to talk about the
    ports of entry. We have just got to continue to transform our
    processes there, be as efficient as possible. And we identified
    our staffing needs. We need to apply them appropriately and
    really between the ports implement that risk-based approach
    with the flexibility that Chief Fisher spoke about. I look
    forward to continuing to work with you and your Committee.
        Chairman Carper. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Heyman. Mr. Chairman, thank you on behalf of the
    Department for holding this hearing and giving us an
    opportunity to put forward what I think is a good story about
    our border and our ability to secure it. We have made
    substantial gains in border security over the last decade, and
    particularly the last 3 or 4 years. We see that apprehensions
    are at historic lows, 49 percent down in the last 4 years,
    seizures at record highs, border crime significantly decreased
    in border communities, and by all accounts, that is a good
    story, and we should continue to move in that direction.
        I think, look, the border is a living, breathing, permeable
    membrane that allows us both to sustain our daily lives through
    the goods and things that come through and the business
    transaction, but also to protect us against those who would do
    harm. We want to be able to expedite lawful trade and travel,
    and we want to be able to interdict threats at the earliest
    opportunity.
        The Department of Homeland Security makes that a principal
    mission. There is no single solution that is going to allow for
    that complex and important mission to be accomplished. But I
    think this comprehensive immigration reform bill provides the
    best opportunity. Because there is no single solution, you need
    a comprehensive approach. You need to address the magnet that
    attracts people here for illegitimate work. We need to address
    the visas that are perhaps out of line and have been for a
    number of years. And we need to address the security and
    continue to build on, as we have talked about here, the
    technology deployment, the resources to secure the border. I
    think this bill does that. It is comprehensive. If it were
    easy, we would have done it 20 years ago, 10 years ago, today.
    It is not, but this provides us the best path forward, and this
    Administration supports it and will work with you to get it
    done. Thank you.
        Chairman Carper. Thank you very much for that statement.
        I believe, in a closing comment of my own, I am reminded
    that a couple months from now it is going to be blazing hot
    down on the border. It will be 120 degrees. The sun will be
    bearing down, and the men and women who are serving us will be
    there to do their jobs. During times this year when we had
    monsoon rains, very hard rains, they had a lot of drought down
    there. But when it is raining hard or even hailing or whatever,
    they will be there doing their jobs. If rocks are being thrown
    at them, people taking shots at them, they will be there. Good
    weather, bad weather, day and night. And we need to keep that
    in mind and just to again express through you our appreciation
    for the very good work that is being done, and sometimes in
    very difficult circumstances, and for the most part done in a
    very good spirit. People take pride in their work. I have been
    really very favorably impressed, very encouraged just by the
    spirit of the men and women that I have talked to, whether it
    is California, Arizona, Texas, or up on the Canadian border.
    Very encouraged.
        We aspire--I know you do, too--to be nearly perfect in the
    work that we do. That is probably not achievable here. I was in
    places along the Rio Grande River last week where you could put
    a Border Patrol officer every 50 yards, every 100 yards, and it
    would be tough to be able to stop everybody from getting
    through. Does that mean we do not try? No. We have to be smart,
    think smart, figure out where the risks are, where the risks
    are highest, allocate the resources that make the most sense
    there.
        We have an obligation here to ask tough questions. We are
    stewards of the resources of our people in this country, the
    taxpayers, and the good news is we are going to have some extra
    resources. And the question is: How are we going to use those
    resources? Where are we going to invest them? You can help us
    decide how to do that, and you have given some great answers in
    previous exchanges and, frankly, a number of other good ones
    here today.
        So as we close, let me just say I am not discouraged. I am
    encouraged. And there is a very good spirit here in this
    Committee, and I hear from the responses here that there is
    actually the makings of a pretty good comprehensive, all-hands-
    on-deck approach, all-of-the-above kind of approach that makes
    a whole lot of sense.
        The last thing I will say, I might be wrong, but I think
    the people who say that if we had a smart, comprehensive
    immigration policy in place, one that actually allowed people
    to legally go from Mexico into to the United States to work for
    a while and then go back, to go back home where a lot of them
    want to go, anyway, that would be helpful.
        To the extent that we had a situation where somebody comes
    to this country to go to school, go to college, get a degree,
    maybe an advanced degree, maybe in one of the science,
    technology, engineering, math (STEM) subjects--and they
    actually had the opportunity with an undergraduate degree or an
    advanced degree, had a chance to stay here, the idea of
    stapling that green card to their diploma, that is going to
    help a little bit, too, in terms of those folks that overstay
    their visas.
        But I want to thank you all for joining us today. Thanks
    for the work you do, and a special thanks to Anne Richards, the
    real Anne Richards. I served as Governor with former Governor
    Richards and had great affection for her, and we are delighted
    that you could be here, and your presence reminds me of the
    great service she provided for the folks in Texas and our
    country.
        I understand that the hearing record will remain open for
    another 15 days, that is, until May 22 at 5 p.m., for the
    submission of statements and questions for the record.
        With that, we are going to adjourn this hearing. Thank you
    all very much.
        [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]