tv [untitled] May 9, 2012 9:00am-9:30am EDT
captioning performed by vitac and then talk about what it means to prevent all entries. at what level and where do we start and where do we need to end for our end state. >> i think the american people do want to have a conversation about what level the border is secure and what we're doing. there's got to be some measurable parameter that we can talk. you can hold your people to a standard or achievement and
there are three things that come to mind. arrests made at the border for people trying to cross illegally. apprehensions in the homeland, interior where we've identified illegals that made it through your web. and they are caught, apprehended by i.c.e. in another city and then i think a standard that we don't talk about is how many -- what's the amount of drugs on the street because the illegal smuggling activity that comes into this country, you know, we don't hear that much but we need to lessen the amount of drugs on the street. i think that's a parameter we can measure your performance by. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, again, for the field hearing in laredo. it was very productive. chief thank you for being here. thanks for your service. i always learn something new every time i go down there. we met with the task force and
they talked in laredo about the cartel activity going on there. this was last week, predicting that the violence was going to go up. it was going to spike and sure enough last friday 23 individuals were killed in laredo. hung over bridges, decapitated, just a reminder that the border is not a safe place, that we do need to secure the border. i think the thing that keeps me up at night is the most is weapons grade uranium being smuggled from a place like iran to venezuela and then a port of entry, a dirty bomb in a major city. that to me is terrifying. and yet it's not far fetched. i think that's something that is very foreseeable. so operational control of the border is important. last i looked it was 44% under
operational control. you know, we have this new strategy now that scrapped operational control and now the gao has come in to testify that this new strategy does not help performance measures. can you -- i guess i'm a little confused. we're not talking about operational control, we're taking that off the table, and now the new strategy is no performance measures at all. how can we possibly measure whether the border is secure or not? chief? >> yes, congressman. we'll have -- we have measures right now. in other words we're not again going to dismissal of the measures or the metrics or the co comparative statistics. what we're trying to do is match those with the strategic objectives that are outlined in this particular strategy. the scenario that you outlined is one of the primary factors in
our rethinking about how we apply resources to the border and one instance in 2004, quite frankly, it was brute force. we realized we were getting more resources in terms of border patrol agents, getting fences built, getting technology and so the strategy really was get everything forward. we wanted to stop the floss that were coming in. the scenario that you depict is very akin to being able to identify a needle in the hay stack if you well. in order to extract the needle and i'll use this as a particular threat. there's two approaches that you can do to get that needle. the first is having very specific intelligence, information regarding the intent and capability of the opposition. timing, to be able to surgically go into that hay stack and remove it. over the last ten years or so that really didn't, of not applicable in our border scenario. we were not getting that level of intelligence to be able to
extract it that way. so the other approach that you can do to find the needle is reduce the hay stack. so if you look at some of the shifts in our approach between strategies, 2004 was built to be able to reduce the hay stack. as we have done that in terms of people coming across the border, in terms of not just the apprehensions, the unique individuals that make up our border environment in which we operate has changed and so what we try to do now is leverage and try to figure out what is it going to take and of this new strategic approach what then are those metrics that will continue to carry over that we have tradititr traditionally reporting and what haven't we reported that is the risk along our borders. it's more a methodology than a metric. we want to come back to the committee in an open or closed hearing to be able to tell you about the information and the intelligence that we're hearing
either very tactically or in a broad sense, talk about the capabilities we have to show you how we're minimizing risk. >> i would like to get that briefing. one thing we learned also is that the human smuggling at the port of entry has gone way down. we saw 5,000 18 wheelers go through the port of entry and they say they rarely find humans in the cargo. mostly drugs coming through. that means they are coming through the ports of entry. while the apprehensions have gone way down the otm rate has gone way up. so wean the port of entry is where the scenario i out lined is probably most likely to happen. i do think technology is going be the solution to getting that secure. can you tell me where you are with the latest advances in technology and what is your
strategic plan to deliver technology to the border? >> well the strategic plan really talks about optimizing capability. the first thing before we say hey we need ten more of these or 15 more of these is take a look at about what capability, what technology has been deployed over the last few years. one, are we utilizing in the right combination. i'll give you a quick example. take a look at arizona. we have everything from unattended ground sensors that are implanted in the ground. mobile systems. fixed towers. we have light and medium lift helicopters that are looking infrared and running pay loads. that whole sweep of capability is something that this organization over the last few wears is just trying to figure out how do you deploy that within the theater of operation. they are not deployed equally because they have different capabilities. we have to understand organizationally and within the leadership how we maximize those capabilities and how we shift and redeploy resources from
areas that were once areas of high threat in terms of activity levels and redeploy those to new areas where we've stein displacement or new emerging threats along our border. >> thank you. you have an enormous challenge. with that i wreeld back. >> certainly want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today an your testimony. and we're going to close the subcommittee here. i also wanted to mention, to follow up on something mr. mccall said about operational control. i think there's a lot of consternation on behalf of the subcommittee about moving away from the term operational control. again, as i say i think we're totally open to use agnew term or a new metrics, if we can understand exactly what all of that is. i had a bill that actually passed the subcommittee, the full committee and then very, very optimistic is going to have floor action in front of the full house very shortly, actually.
that's the security border act of 2011 and essentially what this requires is that the secretary of homeland security submit a comprehensive strategy to congress within 180 days to gain and maintain operational control of the border within five years and that if -- we sort of anticipated the department moving away from the strategy of using the term operational control. if you use any other standard -- let's see, we have another member, so we'll indulge her in her questioning. if we use any other member, or any other term other than operational control the secretary is required to vet that standard through a national laboratory that has prior expertise on border security of which there's about half a dozen in the nation. also the secretary would have to submit a measurement system to the committee within 180 days. that analyzes the effectiveness of security in all of the land, air and seaports of entry as well. as mr. mccall was mentioning
about the ports of entry you have to vet that through a national laboratory evaluate the port of entry measurement. i'm looking forward to floor action on that particular piece of legislation. i know many things pass house to and never see the light of day in the senate. however, this particular piece we may have some success there as well. >> before you go -- >> yes, gentleman from texas. >> i would ask and to follow up on what you said because i think you're absolutely correct, chief fisher and thank you for the big support of gao and all the work you did. i appreciate it. one of the things we did in texas when we went to performance measures and all that we actually worked the agency would work with the members of a state legislature, work out definitions, performance measures and goals, i guess washington does things a little different where you all
go off and do your own and it's not only you it's the other agencies, the executive branch and it doesn't matter whether it's democrats or republicans, but believe it or not you got a lot of folks here with experience here that could help you on some of those definitions, you know. we might not agree 100% but anyway we can bounce that off because the ideas that the chairwoman had and some of the ideas i had and some of the other members here, we could work with you and i know washington has done a little different but on performance measures and objectives, goals, all that we could help you. so anyway we could help you, we would appreciate it especially from the gao because i know when we worked together you were very helpful and i apologize i was giving credit to dr. rosenberg. thank you for your work. >> the chair recognizes for five minutes the gentlelady for five minutes. >> i want though thank the
committee for holding this hearing. if i thank the witnesses. we're marking up in another committee and very pleased to have the opportunity to raise some issues with you. first, chief fisher i just want to ask a straightforward question. your comfortable with the 2012 strategy that you have put forward? >> yes, i am. >> what do you think is the most important element of that strategy? >> it's the focus of -- there's a common theme within that strategy that i certainly see is identifying, developing and training future leaders of this organization. >> do you see in that 2012 strategy an undermining of the national security of the united states of america? >> do i noi do not. >> do you see an undermining of the securing of the northern border? >> i do not. >> of the southern border? >> i do not. >> let me indicate i have, i think, been somewhere affiliated with the border patrol customs
and border protection from the entire time of my career in congress. first on the judiciary committee and then subsequently as the homeland security committee was designed in my original membership as this began to emerge. you came under that umbrella. i remember after 2000 we worked very hard to secure night goggles, lap computers, vehicles and other necessities that we thought were imperative for that intense work on the border of capturing those entering illegally. do you think you have enough of those resources now and are you able to maximize those resources to deal with the present conditions of the southern border in particular? >> to your first part no we don't have enough of those resources and to the second part i don't think we're maximizing to the extent that we need to all of those capabilities which is a common theme within our
strategy now. >> so the strategy is going to utilize or to improve on personnel, is that correct in >> it will, yes, ma'am. >> but also if we were to provide you with resources you would add to the equipment, is that what i'm understanding? is that that's correct, yes. >> but you believe you have the territorial range to be able to do your job? >> at this point and that's part of the implementation plan where i'm asking the field lead towers assess based on what they have on these new objectives. i'm glad you raised that point, congresswoman because i don't want to heavy the impression, nor in some. reports that i've seen that suggest that this strategy does not require additional resources. it may but what we're doing now is taking a look at the resources that we do have. one, are we maximizing the capability of all of those resources and two to we have them in the right locations against the emerging threats and that's a process that we're looking at within the implementation and it may be coming back to this committee
and say here is the gap that may be in technology, it may be in other resources that we'll continue to do as an evolution process like any other strategy. >> we can expect a report forthcoming? as you analyze you'll be reporting back to congress? >> right. we're in the phase right now, have been for the last few months, we're transitioning. >> that's fine. >> yes ma'am. >> the regional territory you're working with now on the border that's the territory you feel comfortable working in? >> yes. >> let me just indicate that chief has already said that he has strengthened relationships with federal, local tribal and international partners which i think is good. that's part of your strategy. and i would hope as we listen to the chief going forward that we be particularly sensitive on any attempt to expand the area of
control to, into federal lands, 100 miles in without listening to the work of the border security, customs and border security and others protection that are dealing with this. i am quite concerned that we not listen to the report that may be forthcoming. i think the strategy is effective in its collaborative efforts. i think it's effective in its assessment efforts. i think it's important to do so. i would ask the last question to miss gambler, are you satisfied with the 2012 assessment and do you see a need to expand the range into federal lands for the border and the customs and bore terrify protection? >> i think your question is getting at how well the border
patrol coordinates with other agency that have some border security responsibilities. we reported in the past that the border patrol has made progress in those coordinating mechanisms and in partnerships but that there was a need for some additional oversight including additional oversight in how the border patrol coordinates with agencies that do have some responsibilities for border security on federal lands. >> let me just conclude, madam chair, and thank you for the time, at this point i would be quite concerned about any legislation suggesting that is countering the strategic plan and asking congress to extend the jurisdiction of the border patrol hundreds of miles inland and particularly suggesting that they be in the federal lands at this point without a complete strategic report and analysis by dhs and the border patrol, customs and bore terrify protection of the united states.
thank you very much and i yield back my time. >> thank the gentlelady. i want to thank the witnesses for all their testimony today. it's been a very informative hearing. as have been said we look forward to working with all of you, particularly you, chief, with an unbelievable mission we have tasked your agency with, and we want to make sure you do get the resources and the training and availability and again we're operating on a very tight constraint budget environment here but at the same time border security is something that the american people have made very clear, they have a political will to do so and looking to the congress to do that as well so we appreciate all you being here and appreciate all of the members participation today and the hearing record will be held open for ten days. if there's any questions from any other members. the gentlelady from texas snimd like to submit into the record an article from the houston chronicle by tony freeman regarding bore terrify security. >> without objection.
the house armed services committee today works on a defense programs plan for 2013. the authorization proposes $554 billion for the defense department and national security programs and $88 billion for overseas contingency operations. live coverage gets under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. i thought it was important to write a book that took people's movement seriously. the movement that elected obama, how did they build over time. obama didn't come out move to where. 2003-2004 how did it happen. what about the party.
those were important things to take seriously to look at the social movement, we the people perspective. >> on after words former white house advisor van jones on social moments in america today. saturday night at 10:00 eastern on book tv. also this weekend the american spectator founder contendses modern liberalism is flawed as has no answers. "in the death of liberalism." part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. saturdays this month c-span radio is airing more of the nixon tapes from the collection of secretly recorded phone conversations from 1971 to 1973. this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern hear conversations with deputy national security advisor alexander haig. >> very significant this "new york times" expose, the most highly classified documents of the war. >> oh, that, i see.
i didn't read the story but you mean that was leaked out of the pentagon? >> sir, there was a whole study that was done for macnamara that was conducted by the peaceniks over there. >> list on in washington on 90.1 fm, xm 119. next a news conference with british prime minister david cameron and his liberal democrat deputy prime minister nick clegg. he said his coalition government continues to be important and necessary. this comes as both parties saw losses in local the elections recently. this event was held at a tractor factory in essex, england and it's about 35 minutes. [ applause ] >> so as i said about five
minutes ago, it's a unique and historic occasion. i want you all to welcome the prime minister david cameron and the deputy prime minister nick clegg into the plant. they'll give you a short speech each and then we'll have a q&a session. thank you. >> thanks very much, indeed. thank you very much for the warm welcome. it's great to be here. great to be here in a factory that is employing more people this year, that's expanding and that's doing so well selling overseas. but i know that we're living in very difficult economic times. and i just wanted to say a word about that before asking nick to speak and then we'll try and answer your questions. these are tough economic times. you switch on your television screen and you can see what a difficulty the eurozone is having. here at home, we're finding it more difficult to get our economy recovering. and, of course, for families around our country, things are difficult. it's difficult when petrol and diesel prices are high. it's difficult when so many people have had a pay freeze. it is tough right now for
families to make ends meet. we're in a difficult economic situation. now we formed a coalition two years ago to try and deal with these problems, and i believe the need for that coalition, two parties working together to solve the problems we have in our country, i think is as important and as necessary today as it was two years ago. let me tell you the three things i think that we need to do. first of all, i'm afraid we can't let up on the difficult decisions that we've made to cut public spending and to get our deficit and our debt under control. i know it's hard. i know it's difficult. but when you have got a debt problem, the one thing you mustn't do is keep adding endlessly to that debt. we all know if you've got a credit card you max out that credit card. you shouldn't go and max out another. the problems of overspending and too much debt can't be solved by even more spending and more debt. and crucially, we've got to keep our interest rates low. that will help firms like this
expand. helps families with their mortgages. so it's right to keep with the tough decisions that we've made. but just because we're dealing with the debt and deficit, that doesn't mean we don't need to go for growth. and we need to think of all the things we can do to help get our economy growing, whether that's encouraging the banks to lend more money, whether it's actually helping firms to start up, whether it's making easier for companies like this to employ more people. whether it's investing in apprenticeships, we need to do all of those things and, frankly, we need to redouble our efforts in doing all of those things. we have got to rebalance our economy. when we came in, the government was too big, but the private sector was too small. we had lots of jobs in finance, but not enough jobs in manufacturing. we had a lot of wealth concentrated in the south of the country, but not enough spread around the country. so we've got to rebalance in all of those ways. as we do so, we've got to try and help people more.
we have frozen the cancel tax. we've lifted a lot of people out of income tax. we tried to help on things like petrol duty but i know there's more we need to do. third point from me, after dealing with the debt and going for growth, we're both in this to try and build something for our country that is more worthwhile than what we inherited from the last government. what we want to do is get behind families that work hard and do the right thing. i've lost count of the times that people have said to me, look, prime minister, i work hard, and i try and save for my old age. my wife works hard. she tries to do the right thing. yet we feel that we get punished for doing the right thing rather than rewarded. so i want to make sure whether it's reforming our welfare system so that it doesn't pay to sit at home when you could work, whether it's cutting our taxes on the money that you earn, whether it's making sure you can buy your own home and invest in that home, whether it's making sure there are good schools for your children to go to,
everything this government does is not just about the dry numbers of the economy. it's about building something that is really worthwhile in our country as we take these difficult decisions. that's what fires me up. that's what the next few years have got to be about. that's what this coalition government has got to be about. nick, over to you. >> thanks for letting us interrupt your day's work. your blue and yellow livery on your tractors are tailor made for the politics of this coalition. as david explained, we started off with one simple mission in mind. and that is to rescue, repair and reform the british economy. and i would just really like to add to what david said with three points. firstly, it's worth remembering what we're having to recover from. in my view what happened in 2008 wasn't just any old recession. it wasn't just a blip on an economist's chart.
we suffered a big heart attack at the very center of our market. the housing bubble burst and the banks blew up in our face. it's like a cardiac arrest where blood no longer pumps around the system because the banks can't lend money into the economy. all that stopped. and it's painstaking work recovering from that. and it's not something we're going to achieve overnight. and so we need to bear in mind the enormity of the trauma if you like that we suffered back in 2008. a second thing i'd say is that dealing with the deficit, a very dry exercise, i think we have a moral duty to the next generations and to our children and grandchildren to wipe the slate clean for them. we set out a plan that lasts about six or seven years to wipe the slate clean to rid people of that dead weight of debt that has been built up over time.
just imagine if you didn't take the time to get it right now. just imagine if our children and grandchildren had to face years and years and years of more cuts and more savings with no end in sight. so i think we owe it to the youngsters of today to lift that dead weight of debt off their shoulders. and for those critics who say about us in this coalition government that we're somehow doing this with ideological reasons, that we're doing this with any relish, we do this because we want to shrink the state, nonsense. we're doing this, not because we want to but because we have to. even at the end of this parliament, we as a government will be spending about 730 billion pounds of your money. that's about 42% of national wealth of gdp which is more, by the way, than any time between 1995 and the time when the banks went belly up in 2008. and the final thing i'd say is this.