[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROJECT 28, THE FUTURE OF SBINET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-920 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�0900012009
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, PETER T. KING, New York
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts LAMAR SMITH, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
JANE HARMAN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon TOM DAVIS, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Columbia BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
Islands GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
AL GREEN, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
VACANCY
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, Chairwoman
JANE HARMAN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
AL GREEN, Texas PETER T. KING, New York (Ex
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Alison Rosso, Director
Denise Krepp, Counsel
Carla Zamudio-Dolan, Clerk
Mandy Bowers, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism.................. 1
The Honorable Mark E. Souder, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Indiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Border, Maritme, and Global Counterterrorism................... 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas............................................. 22
The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas................................................. 19
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas........................................ 20
WITNESSES
Chief David V. Aguilar, Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mr. Jerry W. McElwee, Vice President and Program Manager SBInet,
Boeing Advanced Systems:
Oral Statement................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Mr. Gregory Giddens, Executive Director, Secure Border
Initiative, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Questions and Responses:
Responses from Mr. Greg Giddens................................ 23
Responses from Mr Jerry w. McElwee............................. 30
PROJECT 28, THE FUTURE OF SBINET
----------
Thursday, June 7, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border, Maritime,
and Global Counterterrorism,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:17 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Loretta Sanchez
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Langevin,
Cuellar, Green, Thompson (ex officio) and Souder.
Ms. Sanchez. The subcommittee will come to order. And the
subcommittee today is meeting to receive testimony on Project
28, the future of SBInet. Good afternoon. Thank you gentlemen
for being before us today on this hearing, Project 28, the
future of the Security Border Initiative Net or SBInet. As we
all know, securing our nation's borders is an urgent issue that
has been long overlooked. This subcommittee has been concerned
about the state of American security and American border
security and what needs to be done to improve it. In fact, this
hearing is our sixth subcommittee hearing that has specifically
focused on border security issues, and I am sure that we will
continue to examine these issues closely, especially in the
coming months as we see what is happening over on the other
side at the Senate. Today's hearing is meant to be an update on
the status of SBInet and on the plans of the next phases of
implementation.
The SBInet portion of the Secure Border Initiative is
tasked with establishing a system of systems that utilizes
surveillance detection, command and control intelligence,
tactical infrastructure, communications and information
technology. There is no doubt that SBInet is a challenging
initiative. And for that reason, we will be watching it closely
to ensure that it improves our Nation's border security and
that it is a sound investment of our tax dollars.
I am looking forward to hearing about the progress on
construction of Project 28, the first infrastructure phase of
SBInet which I believe will be completed in the coming weeks.
In addition, I would like to know the plans and the timeline
from the Border Patrol staff on Project 28, ensuring that
Project 28 is fully integrated into the other systems and
technologies that we have working for us on the border. It
would be also useful to have a timeline and procedures by the
Border Patrol and Customs border protection and Boeing to
compile lessons learned on Project 28 and integrate any of
those into the next phases of SBInet.
I am looking forward to the dialogue today. And I look
forward to your testimony.
And I would like to thank our ranking member for continuing
to be interested in this subject. And I look forward to
continuing to work with you, and I will now yield for your
opening statement.
Mr. Souder. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman of our
subcommittee, for your continuing oversight of this important
issue, and I appreciate working together. It has been
enjoyable, and hopefully we will continue to do so.
Controlling our country's borders is an issue of
sovereignty, and it is critical to our national security. In
the United States, we have 2,000 miles of land border and
thousands of miles along our coast, where illegal aliens,
criminal organizations and others with illicit purposes seek to
exploit the borders through illegally crossing or by coming
through our ports of entry using fraudulent documents. There is
no argument that hardening our borders is essential and
achievable.
While we do have disagreements within Congress on the best
way to go about doing that, including how to implement the
appropriate mix of physical infrastructure, technology and
people. I think we can all agree that security must move
forward. A promise was made to the American people in 1986 with
the passage of the last amnesty bill that our borders would be
secured. The glaring failure to fulfill that promise leaves the
Nation with a much larger problem today at a time when we are
also fighting a war against terrorist extremists. Even those of
us who are favorable to resolving the status of those who
currently are within the United States and increasing legal
migration think that there is a growing number in Congress who
agree that moving forward with a mass amnesty bill would divert
resources away from securing the border, just as it did in
1986, and could actually put the Nation at greater risk with
unreliable background checks and rampant use of fraudulent
documents. The media markets of foreign countries, especially
those in Mexico and Latin and South America, are advertising
that Congress is working at another amnesty. And I predict that
we will see an increase of illegal entry for those trying to
get into the U.S. before action is taken and the borders are
hardened.
I raise this issue to express my concern that the SBInet
runs a risk of becoming a program that starts full of promise
but fizzles out because the political winds change and
resources are diverted. I am afraid that this is what is
happening with the US-VISIT program, another critical border
security initiative that still doesn't have an exit in place.
Madam Chair, I hope that the subcommittee will hold a
hearing in the future on this program as well. Specifically
regarding SBInet and Project 28, I understand from previous DHS
testimony that the schedule for completing SBInet in gaining
operational control over the borders is 2013, almost 6 years
from now, for a price tag of about $8 billion. I hope to get
additional insight today of this timeline, the milestones, what
physical roll infrastructure and fencing will play in how all
of the systems will work together. I am concerned about the
lifecycle cost for SBInet and how technology will hold up to
the elements and operational requirements in future years.
According to DHS budget information, the $8 billion planned
expenditure covers the program through 2011 but not through
2013 when the program is to be completed. I also want to know
if models and testing have been done to estimate how the
equipment will work 10 to 20 years from now. We cannot have
another acquisition program that delivers unreliable equipment
and assets like we saw in the deep water 110-foot cutter
conversion and the design flaws in the National Security Cutter
that may limit the life span of the vessel. For the committee
to conduct proper oversight over SBInet, we have to understand
how DHS and Boeing intend to measure success for Project 28 and
the larger SBInet program. Conventional wisdom in the past
tends to presume that as security measures are added to the 28
miles in Sasabe, Arizona, illegal traffic will move to other
areas along the border. That being the case, it will be
difficult to measure how successful the different aspects of
Project 28 are in patrolling the border. It is unclear to me
what other performance measures are in place to gage the costs
and benefits of Project 28, and I hope the witnesses can
provide greater clarity to the testimony. The stakes are high
in the mission to secure our borders. This is not just an
economic migrant issue. Communities across the United States
are dealing with the ramifications of our porous borders,
ranging from illegal drugs, growing violence and illegal gang
activity. This doesn't include the danger that terrorists are
continually seeking ways to enter the United States.
While statistics provided by the Border Patrol show that,
last year, apprehensions of illegal aliens were down, our
communities are seeing an influx of drugs. The retail price of
cocaine fell by 11 percent from 2005 to 2006 to about $135 a
gram of pure cocaine according to U.S. drug czar John Walters.
If the price of drugs is falling, it is generally because there
is a surplus, and that means more coming across our borders.
Our borders are in fact not secure.
This subcommittee has also received testimony about growing
violence in border communities and against border agents.
Yesterday an article appeared in the Christian Science Monitor
saying that, quote, attacks on agents since October rose 3
percent over the same period a year earlier. But in the Yuma
sector in western Arizona, a hotbed of smuggling activity,
they've jumped 56 percent. This increase in violence is one
piece of evidence that our security efforts are having an
impact, and the response, smugglers and illegal crossers are
becoming more brazen and desperate. In the accompanying
testimony on the technical and physical security improvements
under SBInet, I will also ask the witnesses to speak about what
is being done to prepare border agents for the increasing
violence.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing and for
letting me give a long opening statement. I would like to thank
our witnesses for being here. Look forward to your testimony. I
yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank my colleague from Indiana. And I think
it is incredibly important what you were talking about with
respect to the possible harm to our border agents and law
enforcement personnel there. So good opening statement. I now
recognize the Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And I
might say, welcome, again to our witnesses. It looks like you
were together just yesterday.
Madam Chairman, June 13, 2007, marks an important date for
the SBInet program and for the Department of Homeland Security
as a whole. On that date, Project 28 is scheduled to be fully
operational, and we will begin to learn whether this $20
million initial investment is going to be a success. But more
than that, we should start to better understand whether SBInet
is a technology solution that will give us the results we have
been looking and seeking all along, a more secure border.
Unfortunately, SBInet is the third border technology
program that the department has launched. We are told, however,
that this time around the outcome will be very different,
partially because the department has learned valuable lessons
from previous mistakes. We hope that this is the case because
American taxpayers have spent more than $650 million and have
waited more than 10 years for a successful border security
initiative technology program. If it is successful, Project 28
will finally give our Border Patrol agents the realtime
situational awareness they need to take control of this 28-mile
stretch of Arizona border while also helping ensure the agents'
safety. Like many of my colleagues, I will be closely
monitoring the rollout of Project 28 in the coming days and
weeks. I look forward to visiting the site in the near future.
Of course Project 28 is only the beginning of the SBInet
program, and much more work remains to replicate similar
technology across our borders. Therefore, the committee will
continue to conduct vigorous oversight over Project 28 and the
SBInet program in the coming months and beyond. Project 28 may
well be the future of America's border security. Hopefully we
got it right this time. And I yield back.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman,
Committee on Homeland Security
June 13, 2007, marks an important date for the SBInet
program and for the Department of Homeland Security as a whole.
On that date, Project 28 is scheduled to be fully
operational, and we will begin to learn whether this $20 million
initial investment is going to be a success.
But more than that, we should start to better understand
whether SBInet is the technology solution that will give us the result
we have been seeking all along: a more secure border.
Unfortunately, SBInet is the third border technology
program that the Department has launched.
We are told, however, that this time around the outcome
will be very different, partly because the Department has learned
valuable lessons from previous mistakes.
We hope that is the case because the American taxpayer has
spent more than $650 million and has waited more than ten years for a
successful border security technology program.
If it is successful, Project 28 will finally give our
Border Patrol agents the real-time situational awareness they need to
take control of this 28 mile stretch of Arizona border, while also
helping ensure the agents' safety.
Like many of my colleagues, I will be closely monitoring
the rollout of Project 28 in the coming days and weeks, and look
forward to visiting the site in the near future.
Of course, Project 28 is only the beginning of the SBInet
program, and much work remains to replicate similar technology across
our borders.
Therefore, the Committee will continue to conduct vigorous
oversight over Project 28 and the SBInet program in the coming months
and beyond.
Project 28 may well be the future of America's border
security. . . hopefully we got it right this time.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I welcome our
panel of witnesses. And I believe I am told that there may be
votes being called up in another 15 or 20 minutes, so what I
would like to try to do is get through our witnesses, each of
you having 5 minutes to testify, and hopefully they are wrong
on the votes, and we can get into asking some of the questions.
And if not, we will break for those votes and then come back.
Our first witness is Chief Aguilar of the U.S. Border
Patrol. We know all about you. I will put it into the record,
all your background and everything. Our second witness is Mr.
Gregory Giddens, director of the Secure Border Initiative at
the Department of Homeland Security. And our third and final
witness, Mr. Jerry McElwee, is vice president and SBInet
program manager for Boeing.
Ms. Sanchez. So, welcome, gentlemen, and we will start with
the chief for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID V. AGUILAR, CHIEF, BORDER PATROL, U.S.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman
Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder and Chairman Thompson and other
members of the committee that may walk in here in a little bit.
It is a pleasure and opportunity to be here with you this
afternoon to share information with you and testify on one of
the most--what I believe to be one of the most impacting
initiatives that this country has ever undertaken towards
getting operational control of our borders. I would like to
begin very quickly with talking to what I had talked about in
the past, and that is a tremendous amount of forces that are
impacting our borders, both north and south, and that equates
to the following: 1.1 million illegal aliens last year; 1.3
million pounds of narcotics that we apprehended last year. This
is all Border Patrol specific. Approximately 108,000 OTMs; over
80,000 criminal aliens, and very importantly, the criminal
organizations that are exploiting our borders, both north and
south, in order to make use of our communities into--and
smuggling into the United States. In addition to that, of
course, is something that we are all very interested in, is
anybody having an affiliation or a nexus to a country that
exports terrorism or directly affiliated with terrorism.
Now, all of this is happening across our 6,000 miles of
border. Vast rural, remote areas of operation where we have
operated historically. Past efforts that the Border Patrol has
instituted against this border have in the best way that I can
capture it been in a fragmented manner, and by that, I mean the
following: Not that it was bad, but it was just fragmented. Too
often in the past, we looked, organizationally and I think as a
government, at applying a magic bullet, one piece of equipment,
one solution to take care of the problem of our border.
The difference today that we are going to talk about is
going to be an integrated system that brings several pieces of
technology, rudimentary and 21st Century, something as simple
as a fence that will integrate with the technology that the
integrator and the SBInet will be bringing to the table that
will give us very simply the following things in order to bring
operational control to the border, and that is the ability to:
detect an entry; deter an entry; classify and identify what
that illegal incursion is, that is from all-threats
perspective; respond to it; and then bring it to the
appropriate resolution as it relates to law enforcement. Is it
an arrest? Is it a prosecution? Is it a deportation, a removal?
Anything of that nature, all of those will be combined in this
integrated systems approach that we are taking under SBInet.
Now, very importantly is the right mix of resources. I have
been asked this question several times, is, under this SBInet
program, the right mix of resources? We will start with the
operators. We will basically identify what the requirements
are, and between SBInet and the integrator, we will identify
the solutions set to apply to that focused portion of the
border that we are working on in order to get us the
operational control capability that I spoke to just a second
ago.
Now, today, as we speak, I don't want to ignore what I
think is very important. We have already received unprecedented
levels of resources as we continue to grow. We are on track to
recruit, train and hire a net 2,500 Border Patrol agents by the
end of this fiscal year. Today we sit at about 13,600 agents
that are onboard. Operation Jump Start, up to 6,000 National
Guard personnel currently deployed. We have ended catch-and-
release, 70 miles of fence to be built this year, commitment to
build 225 miles next year. Partnerships have been established.
Operations, such as stone garden, the creation of the best
teams in Phoenix and San Diego and Laredo. Operation
streamline, that has been absolutely effective in the Del Rio
sector. That has mitigated that flow down there to a level of
about 68 percent less than what it was compared to last year.
Oasis and border violence protocols with Mexico, now a good
partner working with us in order to instill even more security
along our country's borders.
The results of that that I can give you are: Illegal alien
apprehensions today are down by 25 percent for the time period
compared to last year. Narcotics apprehensions are actually up
by 32 percent. That inverse relationship is a good one. The
less time that we speak on any one of those--that we spend on
any one of those horses coming at us, the more we can dedicate
to the additional threats, vulnerabilities to risks that are
there. We have been able to dedicate more time to narcotics.
Therefore, we have a 32 percent increase in the apprehensions.
OTM apprehensions are down by 47 percent. Last year, we had
108,000 OTMs. We are down by 47 percent this year.
Probably the most important thing that I want to touch on
right now is the following, and that is transformation. We
started out as an organization in 1924 literally riding a
horseback, bringing our own binoculars, our own saddle. That is
what we were. Today, as we speak, we have been equipped. The
future of Border Patrol is going to be SBInet. That integration
system of systems that will give us the capabilities that are
required to bring operational control to the border. It is
integrated. It is a system that is going to be deployed
incrementally by risk management as to where we need to be
focussing on vulnerabilities, threats and risks.
I think, between the three of us, we will be able to give
you a very good picture of where we are going, and I thank the
committee and look forward to any questions that you might have
of us.
[The statement of Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Gregory Giddens
follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Aguilar and Gregory Giddens
CHAIRWOMAN SANCHEZ, RANKING MEMBER SOUDER, AND DISTINGUISHED
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, it is our honor to have the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the current environment of border security
and how SBInet, a key component of the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) Secure Border Initiative (SBI), will provide U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with the tools necessary to gain
effective control of the borders. My name is David Aguilar, and I am
the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, and with me is Greg Giddens, the
Executive Director of SBI. I would like to begin by giving you a brief
overview of our agency and mission.
In November 2005, Secretary Chertoff created the Secure Border
Initiative to galvanize DHS actions across agencies in support of the
President's three core objectives for comprehensive border security and
immigration reform:
Gain effective control of the borders,
Strengthen interior enforcement and compliance with
immigration and customs laws, and
Support passage of a temporary worker program.
Within this comprehensive DHS effort, CBP is charged with executing
the first pillar of SBI--achieving control at and between the Nation's
ports of entry.
CBP, as the guardian of the Nation's borders, safeguards the
homeland--by protecting the American public against terrorists and the
instruments of terror, while at the same time enforcing the laws of the
United States and fostering the Nation's economic security through
lawful travel and trade. In addition, the Border Patrol continues to
perform its traditional and vitally important duties of detecting,
apprehending, and deterring illegal aliens, smugglers, drugs, and other
contraband between the ports of entry. This is done simultaneously and
in conjunction with uniformed CBP officers, who carry out similar
interdiction and deterrence missions at our Nation's ports of entry
while facilitating legitimate trade and legal immigration.
The priority and traditional missions of CBP are complementary in
nature, and we are achieving good results on both fronts. As of May 29,
2007, total overall apprehensions are down 25 percent from fiscal year
2006, with total Other than Mexican (OTMs) apprehensions down 47
percent. The decrease in apprehensions is partly attributable to
efforts to end the practice of ``catch and release'' and aggressive
enforcement programs, such as Operation Streamline, the Arizona Border
Control Initiative, Expedited Removal, the Interior Repatriation
Program, and Operation Jumpstart. At the same time, narcotics seizures
have significantly increased. To date, the Border Patrol has seized
over 1.3 million pounds of marijuana, an increase of 30 percent as
compared to the same time period last year, and 10,730 pounds of
cocaine, an increase of 85 percent as compared to the same time period
last year. Our success is based on deploying the right mix of
personnel, technology, and infrastructure. Thanks to the strong support
of Congress, we now have more agents to patrol more areas of the
border, continue to add fencing and infrastructure along our borders,
have increased our enforcement capabilities through Operation Jump
Start, while building up our own internal resources, and continue our
work to implement the SBInet program. These resource and operational
efforts are having the desired effect on the criminal organizations
that have historically operated along our Nation's borders as we have
engaged our partners at DEA, FBI, and ATF, as well as other DHS
components such as Coast Guard, ICE, and TSA, significantly improving
our information and intelligence sharing efforts with these and other
state local, tribal and law enforcement partners.
The Border Patrol carries out its mission along our Nation's
borders by applying the ``right mix of resources'' in a layered
enforcement mode. This mix of resources includes personnel, technology,
and infrastructure, which are deployed and implemented in a manner that
is tailored to maximize enforcement efforts in a targeted area of
operation. Included in these enforcement efforts is a critically
important second layer of defense that denies major routes of egress
from the borders to smugglers intent on delivering people, drugs, and
other contraband into the interior of the United States. This is done
through the use of tactical and permanent checkpoints on highways
leading away from the border, the checking of transportation hubs that
may be used to smuggle people or contraband, working with law
enforcement task forces, and partnering with other law enforcement
agencies.
The Border Patrol has a clear strategic goal: to establish and
maintain effective control of the borders of the United States.
Effective control is defined in the Border Patrol's strategy as the
ability to:
Detect an illegal entry;
Identify and classify the entry and determine the
level of threat involved;
Respond to the entry; and
Bring the event to a satisfactory law enforcement
resolution.
Critical to effectively accomplishing our mission is the ability to
continually assess, develop, and deploy the appropriate mix of
technology, personnel, and infrastructure in order to gain, maintain,
and expand coverage of the border and use our resources in the most
efficient fashion. SBInet is charged with designing, developing, and
implementing a ``system of systems'' solution that incorporates
surveillance and detection, command and control, intelligence, tactical
infrastructure, communications and information technology. This
integrated solution will support Border Patrol agents between the ports
of entry and CBP officers at the ports of entry as a tool to gain
effective control of our Nation's borders. SBInet will utilize the
latest innovative technology--cameras, biometrics, sensors, air assets,
improved communications systems--to provide the force multiplier that
the CBP agents and officers need to execute the agency's mission in the
safest and most effective manner.
Securing our Nation's diverse border terrain is an important and
complex task that cannot be resolved by a single solution, such as
installing fence alone. To secure each unique mile of the border
requires a balance of technology, infrastructure, and personnel that
maximizes our Nation's return on investment and is tailored to each
specific environment. Some of the components included by the Border
Patrol and SBInet in evaluating tactical infrastructure needs are
border access, border barriers (both vehicle and pedestrian), and the
integration of existing and new technologies, such as cameras, sensors,
and software. The proper mix of resources will vary with differing
border environments and enforcement challenges. Generally, the Border
Patrol operates in three basic geographical environments: urban, rural,
and remote. Each element has its own unique challenges.
In an urban environment, enforcement personnel have only minutes,
or sometimes seconds, to identify an illegal entry and to bring the
situation to a successful resolution. Urban environments have
significant infrastructure that does not exist in rural or remote
areas. Urban areas facilitate an illegal entrant's crossing of the
border and assimilation into the population in such a way that the
violator easily blends in with legitimate traffic in the community
within moments. Typically, smugglers and potential illegal entrants
prefer urban areas due to the available infrastructure.
In urban areas, the deployment mix will lean heavily on SBInet-
provided tactical infrastructure, such as lights and fences, and
technology supported by sufficient personnel to quickly respond to
intrusions. The physical infrastructure serves as a tactical tool to
impede, channel, slow down, and manage the entrant. The deployment
tends to be of high visibility in that a potential intruder actually
sees the barriers, lights, detection capability, and patrols occurring
on or near the immediate border. The goal of deployment in an urban
area is to deter or divert potential illegal traffic into areas where
the routes of egress are not immediately accessible and enforcement
personnel have a greater tactical advantage.
In a rural environment, response time to an incursion can be
greater, as the time from the point of entry to assimilation into the
local infrastructure may be minutes or hours, exposing the violator for
a longer period of time and allowing for a more calculated enforcement
response. Deployment in a rural area will be more dependent upon an
SBInet solution that involves detection technology, which can track the
illegal entrant as he progresses into the country; provides rapid
access to the border; and establishes barriers designed to limit the
speed and carrying capability of violators.
In remote areas, it may take a violator hours or even days to
transit from the point of entry to a location where the entry may be
considered successful. This allows for a significantly more deliberate
response capability geared toward fully exploiting the terrain and
environmental advantages. Deployments in remote areas will lean very
heavily on detection technology and will include infrastructure geared
toward gaining access to permit enforcement personnel to confront and
resolve the event at a time and location that are most tactically and
strategically advantageous. Other infrastructure and/or facilities that
may be employed in a remote area include remote operating bases to
provide for full enforcement coverage in locations that are difficult
to access on a shift-to-shift basis.
Over the years, the Border Patrol has used various forms of
technology and infrastructure to help complete its mission. As
technologies develop and operational needs change, the systems used
have evolved. For example, the Border Patrol screens individuals
against the combined ENFORCE, IDENT, and IAFIS database systems, which
were integrated by US-VISIT. Additionally, Border Patrol installed
high-tech infrared cameras and sensors, provided agents with computers
and intelligence databases, built command centers, and tested radar
technology, all in an effort to bring greater control to the U.S.
borders. Through SBInet, and with help from DHS Science and Technology,
CBP will leverage the most effective proven technology (radars,
communication devices, cameras, sensors, and other equipment),
infrastructure, staffing, and response platforms, as well as integrate
existing resources, in a single comprehensive and integrated border
security solution. SBInet will help enable the CBP Border Patrol agent,
the CBP officer, and the Air and Marine interdiction agent to more
efficiently deter, detect, and resolve illegal entries into the United
States. DHS Science and Technology will help reduce SBInet's
programmatic risk by providing cutting edge technologies that have been
thoroughly researched, developed, tested and evaluated for the system
of systems border solution. Though the technological enhancements are
meant to improve and standardize our way of doing business, they will
also be tailored to meet an individual sector's needs.
Although specific packages will vary, the vision under SBInet is to
move towards a system that makes use of mobile data and communications
systems and Common Operating Picture (COP) technologies that provide
real-time situational awareness. A COP allows agents, dispatchers, and
supervisors to know what is happening throughout their work environment
and gives them broad situational awareness of their areas of
responsibility. For example, agents with a mobile data terminal (MDT)
in their vehicle will be able to receive an alert when sensors are
triggered. The device will then download a live picture of the area
from a camera mounted on towers. This will improve upon current
procedures under which a dispatcher must relay information to the field
agent, increasing overall effectiveness and efficiency. Command and
Control Centers will have a global view of the sector, and they will be
able to zoom in on specific locations via cameras to inform agents of
an illegal entry, the number of persons involved in the incursion,
their location, and the number and locations of agents within the area
that can respond. SBInet plans to install radar, unmanned aircraft
systems, ground surveillance radar, sensors, and camera towers to track
the movement of people, vehicles, or boats. This type of system
decreases the need for physical barriers, although it will not
eliminate the need for fences or barriers in all locations. This is
ideal in many desert, remote, and marine environments, such as the
Great Lakes. These interconnected systems will send real-time, tactical
information to Command and Control Centers and to agents via portable
communications devices. The COP technology will also enhance
integration intelligence for interdiction operations with the Coast
Guard in the Great Lakes region.
The SBInet solution will first be fielded along a 28-mile stretch
of border in Sasabe, Arizona, in an effort known as Project 28. Project
28 is the first segment of the SBInet integrated system that will
supply CBP agents and officers with the ability to detect illegal
entries when they occur, effectively and efficiently respond to each
entry, and bring the situation to the appropriate law enforcement
resolution. Project 28 will provide Border Patrol agents with real-time
information of both CBP assets and intruder locations. This is the
basis for integrated communications among Border Patrol agents, Border
Patrol stations, Border Patrol sectors, and other law enforcement
personnel. The primary components of the Project 28 system are the
mobile integrated sensor towers, the Project 28 COP, enhanced
communications, upgraded patrol vehicles, and Rapid Response Transport
vehicles.
The nine re-deployable sensor towers include integrated cameras and
sensors to improve detection, identification, and classification. The
cameras provide long-range surveillance, while the radar locates moving
targets and classifies them. Both the cameras and radar operate day and
night. The 98-foot high towers elevate the surveillance technologies
above uneven terrain and vegetation. The towers include broadband
wireless transmission capability and can be operated remotely. Once
initial operating capability has been achieved, each tower will operate
independently, incorporating data to the COP.
COP data will be transmitted via the towers to the Tucson
Headquarters facility, a Forward Operating Base, modified Border Patrol
vehicles, and three Rapid Response Transports, increasing situational
awareness, mission efficiency, and agent safety. Project 28 will
provide Command, Control and Communications capability for the COP at
Border Patrol Tucson Sector Headquarters; a Forward Operating Base
Command, Control and Communications Unit outfitted with a COP and
communications equipment; 50 patrol vehicles that have been upgraded to
provide rugged, secure, mounted laptop computers to enable displays of
COP data; and three Rapid Response Transports. Project 28 will also
provide 70 satellite phones to improve communications with the patrol
vehicles.
Project 28 includes three Rapid Response Transports to increase the
speed of transporting illegal immigrants from the point of apprehension
to processing and detention facilities. The Rapid Response Transport
vehicles, which are outfitted with laptops for COP display and
satellite communications equipment, can transport up to 12 people.
CBP has made great strides toward securing America's borders while
facilitating legitimate trade and travel and ensuring the vitality of
our economy. We recognize the challenges that lie ahead. By utilizing
the latest technology and infrastructure as part of a comprehensive
solution that also includes additional well-trained personnel, and by
maintaining a vigilant interior enforcement of our Nation's immigration
laws, we will fulfill our mission of protecting our country and its
citizens. I would like to thank Chairwoman Sanchez, and the members of
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present this testimony today
and for your continued support of DHS and CBP. We would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, chief, and we will listen to Mr.
Giddens now for 5 minutes or less. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY GIDDENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECURE BORDER
INITIATIVE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Giddens. Yes, ma'am. I caught the 5 or less. Good
afternoon, Madam Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder,
Chairman Thompson.
It is an honor to be here in front of you and an honor,
frankly, to be at the table, flanked on my left and right by
both the chief and Jerry. Given your familiarity with SBInet
and Project 28, I will keep my remarks brief, but there are a
couple of issues I would like to highlight. As you know, SBInet
is intended to secure our physical borders by giving our agents
and officers the tools, capabilities, capacities they need in
order to detect illegal entries, be able to effectively and
efficiently respond to those and bring them to a resolution.
Now, while SBInet is an important part of that system, we
recognize it is only one part in a comprehensive solution to
solving border security, one that begins outside our borders
and extends into the interior of the heartland. As outlined in
the Department's border security strategy, it is really one
piece of that integrated strategy; the first being gaining
effective control of our border.
SBInet is a long overdue tool. Certainly the opening
remarks hit home to us, and we have to get this right. It has
been a long time coming, and now's the time we need to deliver
on border security. We believe SBInet will do that. It will
make the agents and officers more effective and efficient. And
it will also improve their safety and also it will be able to
reduce deaths in the desert because of the situational
awareness that we will be able to provide to the agents and
officers in the field.
Both their acquisition approach and the system we deliver
does represent a departure from previous attempts. The chief
mentioned that. This is not a standalone by different
components. It is by a system that is integrated from the
beginning. We are beginning with the end in mind and providing
a system that will provide operational utility. It is not just
buying cameras or buying radars. It is buying a system that
will function for the user. The contract that Boeing has
encountered would ensure that those components work together to
provide just such a system that enables the Border Patrol
agents and the CBP officers to do their job.
Defending Project 28 is really our first deployment and our
first step toward improved security on the Nation's borders
through the SBInet technology solution. In the coming weeks,
Madam Chairman, as you mentioned, SBInet, through Project 28,
will become operational around the Sasabe port of entry, and it
will serve as a model. We appreciate your comments on lessons
learned, and we have a rigorous test program that Boeing is
executing now. And when we go live operationally, we will have
a test program that we will--that we will put the system
through to ensure it meets the needs but also to ensure we
recognize what improvements we need to make as we go forward
past Project 28.
The project will provide the Border Patrol agents realtime
situational awareness of both their assets and also provide the
basis for integrated communications among CBP agents and
officers. The primary components are the mobile integrated
sensor towers, the common operational picture, enhanced
communications, upgraded patrol vehicles as well as the rapid
response transport vehicles. Each 100 miles represents unique
terrain and operational conditions. However, along the 6,000
miles of the northern and southwest border, the same philosophy
must be employed. We must look for that right balance, as the
chief mentioned between, staffing, the personnel, the
technology and the tactical infrastructure.
Given these realities, Project 28 will provide us lessons
learned, and we will apply those to the different terrain and
operational realities that we face as we move out from Project
28. And as mentioned, as with any new technology, we will find
areas that we need to improve on from Project 28. Unique
challenges, particularly on the northern border, in terms of
foliage penetration and along the Great Lakes, will present
unique challenges that we will not face on the southwest
border, and we are already looking to the northern border to
explore some technology solutions that will be appropriate for
that environment.
As we speak, CBP and Boeing officials are preparing for
design work to really finish the design in the southwest and
also on northern border locations. And we will have a detailed
analysis of those geographic and operational environments so
that we will get the solution right. Also, as we speak to
Boeing and CBP agents and officers in the field doing final
testing of the deployed nine towers as a part of Project 28,
the equipment is deployed and we are in the last stages of
integration testing at the field. And we would welcome a visit
for you to be able to see firsthand the difference that that
will make to agents and officers in the field. I look forward
to your questions. I appreciate your leadership and your
insight as we move forward. And I look forward to hosting you
along with the chief and CBP to a visit down to Project 28.
Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
And now Mr. McElwee for 5 minutes or less.
STATEMENT OF JERRY W. McELWEE, VICE PRESIDENT AND PROGRAM
MANAGER SBInet, BOEING ADVANCED SYSTEMS.
Mr. McElwee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Souder, Chairman Thompson, distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Jerry McElwee, and I am the Boeing program
manager for SBInet. With your permission, madam chair, I would
like to submit my written comments for the record and go
directly to charts. I have concluded that charts are in this
distinguished group perhaps my best bet to catch up with all
the good information that has been provided by the chief and by
Greg.
We have talked about Sasabe. This is a Google map taken
from about 13 miles in the air of the terrain in and around
Sasabe. We show the nine towers spread left to right just
inside the border. The two on your left are on the Tohono
Oodham Indian nation. The remaining seven are in the national
forest or in the public territory, public lands. You will
notice that they are not all directly on the border. Our
objective is to make sure that we see everyone that crosses the
border before they are able to reach a control point or that
location where they can disappear into the infrastructure
without likelihood of apprehension.
This next chart shows you the specifics of the tower. There
is a radar on the very top with a long-range camera just
beneath that. The camera is effective both day and night. And
then you see the compound in which that camera is located.
Notice that the tower is on wheels, and is in fact relocatable.
It is a few-hours job to take it down, pull up stakes, load it
on trucks or the tank and the generator and the satellite
antenna and redeploy it to another location. We chose this
approach because we thought it was important that we have some
flexibility as opposed to anchoring permanent towers in the
terrain at this point. This next chart shows you the initial
deployment of tower three. Tower three was in the middle of the
chart--or the Google map of two charts earlier. It is a
relatively straightforward process, and not a lot of training
required but the men who do it, just experience in having done
it a few times.
We have had concerns, questions about what is the volume of
noise associated with the generator, and it is actually much
less than a lawnmower that you might hear on a Saturday
morning. It is a propane generator as opposed to MOGAS or
diesel, and as a consequence, it operates much more quietly
than some of the others. You may notice there is a band around
the base of the tower. That is to preclude people from climbing
the tower. There is a ring around the tower above that brown
band that is local security cameras, lighting for its infrared
lighting as opposed to the bright lights of daytime, plus a
loud hailer. So if someone approaches the camera or the tower,
you can see them at some distance and warn them away or get
their identification for subsequent apprehension so you will
not be able to--
This shows the control room at the Tucson station. It is a
new facility that was there before we arrived, and we have
moved the equipment for the SBInet control center there. And
what you see here are people working and doing the installation
process. But that is up, installed, operational now. And is, as
Greg said, we are going through the test process to ensure that
it all works as a system, the system is, as we said it would.
This chart or photograph shows you what we have done to the
vehicle modification so that operators--and I am sure, you
know, the Border Patrol agents are typically one officer per
vehicle, and so we have set it up so that the driver is able to
be either mobile or at a halt--preferably, for safety reasons,
at a halt--look at the situational awareness around him. From
this laptop, when he is within line of sight of a tower, he can
take control of the camera on the tower and scan left, right,
zoom, pan, tilt, whatever direction he or she chooses to get
personal assessment of the potential undocumented aliens that
he or she may be apprehending. That is a significant reduction
in risk, we think, for an agent to be able to see with his or
her eyes what it is they are going to be encountering when they
attempt to make an apprehension.
The radio equipment that you see there was already
installed. That is part of the original. The hand set,
telephone light that you see to the right of the screen, is an
iridium satellite phone that ensures that you have continuous
communications wherever the agent happens to be. It was our
experience in doing an examination of the southwest desert that
there are many locations that the existing communications that
the agent has do not work. Shortage of relays, shortage of--the
distances are just so vast that it is difficult to cover all of
that. The satellite phone will provide that backup capability.
This next chart shows the build-up of communications that
is central to the entire system. This shows the mobile towers
linked by satellite back to the station. The next flip shows
the operator tying into the towers for communications and
relaying back to the station as well as the vehicles. The third
flip shows the overlay of the iridium satellite system to
ensure that they do in fact have continuous communications, and
the final or the next to final shows the broadband control
system between the vehicle and the tower when the agent wishes
to take control of the tower to--or control of the camera on
the tower to make sure that they are able to see what they are
about to encounter.
Final step of the unattended ground sensors that provide
coverage for depressions or low points in the ground that you
cannot get line of sight coverage.
This last chart shows the analysis that we did. It is the
same terrain, 28 miles there that we are covering. The circles
that you see represent the coverage of the radar systems. The
lines, wiggly lines going from south to north represent most
likely trails that undocumented aliens would attempt to use to
penetrate. Notice the ones on the right are very--if you will--
different directions, lots of changes in the route of march.
That is because it is very difficult terrain. You will see the
green is where we have--with just the towers, not using the
unattended ground sensors--the green is where we have coverage
and would detect someone moving through there at a very high
probability.
You will notice that, as you get towards the back in some
case, you lose them. What we attempted to do in our initial
deployment was provide coverage with both the radars and the
cameras that would preclude anyone moving through that area
without detection.
Madam Chairwoman, that is my set of presentations.
[The statement of Mr. McElwee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry W. McElwee
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder, and
Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Jerry McElwee. I am the Boeing Program Manager for the
SBInet Program. I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about our
progress on Project 28, the first comprehensive deployment task order
of the SBInet Program.
SBInet is a program of significant national interest, with a
challenge to deliver a system to the Department of Homeland Security
that will:
Support the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
in detecting, apprehending, and processing people who cross our
borders illegally,
Facilitate legitimate cross-border travel and
commerce, and most importantly,
Provide the taxpayers with the best-value solution
over the life of the program.
We have an excellent team that proposed a comprehensive, open
system solution utilizing proven technology and a systems architecture
that will allow for continuous improvement as new technology comes on
the market throughout the deployment. It is based on the systems
engineering and design approach that Boeing has developed over time and
used successfully on many other large, complex projects. An aspect of
this approach is to continuously look for ``lessons learned,'' to
incorporate into our process.
We will deploy equipment on the border by drawing from a common set
of proven technology which we call our ``tool box,'' but each sector
solution will be uniquely designed for the needs of that sector.
Boeing is very mindful that everything we do is under the direction
and guidance of the CBP SBInet Program Management Office--and we have
established a very good working partnership with them. Under our
contract, Boeing cannot undertake any work that is not authorized by
CBP through a task order issued under the SBI ID/IQ contract. Each task
order is a FAR-compliant contract which means it has firm requirements
and metrics to measure contractor performance. Project 28 is the first
task order for deployment of our system.
PROJECT 28 SPECIFICS
Project 28 is a Firm Fixed Price task order for the deployment of
equipment across twenty eight miles of the Arizona Border covering the
area on either side of the Sasabe, Arizona Port of Entry (POE). We
chose this area because it is a high-traffic area and will provide a
rigorous test of the system we proposed and are now building.
We have deployed nine towers, each with radar, day/night (EO/IR)
cameras and other sensors. Each tower is also equipped with data
processing and communications equipment to effectively distribute
information to the Control Centers, Mobile Units, Agent Vehicles and
other law enforcement personnel. This information is processed into a
Common Operating Picture (COP) which provides Border Patrol Agents with
an accurate depiction and location of intruders as well as CBP assets.
This capability dramatically improves the situational awareness of
agents in the field, the command centers and sector headquarters.
The first tower was deployed in April and testing began at that
time. Today, all nine towers have been deployed and we began system
level testing earlier this week to ensure that, upon completion, these
towers and associated equipment will work as a system, providing a
highly reliable, available, maintainable, and cost effective solution
to strengthen the management, control and security of the border.
I have some photos of the equipment and charts explaining the
deployment which are attached.
THE WAY FORWARD
CBP has given us authority to start planning for several other task
orders and that work is underway. To support this effort which will run
for the rest of this fiscal year and FY 2008, we have conducted a
comprehensive re-competition of the technology and equipment we will
need for these task orders, i.e. the first refreshment of the ``tool
box.'' We conducted an Industry Day on May 3 which was attended by
almost 900 individuals representing over 400 companies. Approximately
three weeks later, we released 55 Requests for Proposal (RFPs) and are
in the process of receiving and evaluating the resulting submissions.
The winning companies will form the supplier base that will provide the
technology and equipment for the next year or two.
Project 28 gives us a demonstration of our approach and a test bed
for incorporating improvements. The expanded team refreshes out
technology, ensures low prices, and gives us the capacity to execute on
the much larger task orders that lie ahead.
In summary, we think we have made a good start on this program. We
are on track to meet the milestones in the P-28 Demonstration Task
Order, and we have initiated the planning, systems engineering,
analysis, and team expansion necessary to meet the challenges ahead.
Ms. Sanchez. Could you put that last one up for me? Thank
you. Now there will be time to ask some questions, and each of
the members will have 5 minutes, and I will begin the
questioning.
So according to this, the pink along the border that is
just outside of what looks like Project 28, it says undetected.
Is that because it is very rough terrain, and we are sort of
not--
Mr. McElwee. Two reasons: It is outside of the coverage
area, so if we were to cover that, we would move a tower
further to the east. Second, it is rough terrain, and we would
anticipate perhaps using unattended ground sensors. There are a
large number of those deployed in the P28 already, and that
will be tied into the tower to cover the gaps we have.
Ms. Sanchez. So when you finish up Project 28 you will take
the lessons learned from that and you are going to go--I am
assuming along the border or in sections and try to apply the
same--different mix but the same type of technology mix, if you
will. So those pink lines might be sensors or something of the
sort depending on what type of terrain it is.
Mr. McElwee. I wanted to show this to highlight the
analysis that we do of the terrain in which we are operating.
The Border Patrol will assure you every mile of the border from
every other mile. So we have to do the analysis to determine
where the sensors go and how many layers we need for a
particular piece of terrain.
Ms. Sanchez. So you have sort of taken a look at it, you
are putting it in the mix, you are going to finish up Project
28. And then what type of training are the patrols who are
going to be there going to have with respect to this? And have
you started that training, or is it on-the-job training? You
know, what is the program for that?
Mr. McElwee. Yes. We started this morning. It is classroom
training followed with training on the equipment and then
continued training on the job. The agents in the vehicles, I
think the requirements going--we think it will take about 4
hours of training to familiarize them with that. We incorporate
our agents in the test plan that is underway now. The agents in
the control center will require--we believe--a couple of days
of training, and that will also continue with OJT afterwards.
Ms. Sanchez. So once you finish the training and you think
you have got the spots right, when would you say this would
really be up and going, operationally 100 percent, we are going
to be looking after the bad guys?
Mr. McElwee. Two phases, we are going to declare initial
operational capability IOC when we have completed all the
testing and satisfied ourselves that we have collected all of
the faults or bugs that we find.
Ms. Sanchez. And when do you think about approximately what
date that might be?
Mr. McElwee. We are targeting the end of next week.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. And the second phase?
Mr. McElwee. That is followed after IOC. That is turned
over then to the Border Patrol. They operate the equipment. And
approximately a month later, there will be another test done by
an independent agency, communications and electronics command
out of Fort Monmouth. They will come in and conduct another
extended test with just the agents and the equipment to ensure
that they are performing as expected.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Mr. Souder for 5 minutes.
Mr. Souder. I thank you. I am going to actually--sometimes
we say we are going to send questions and we don't get answers
necessarily. I want to read into the record a couple of the
questions I would like back, and we can either do them--I would
like them in the formal hearing record, but maybe if I could
have some follow up. A couple of them relate to more the
narcotics, but that is directly related to the border question.
The tar system, are you still considering in SBInet using the
five balloons? And do you have a recommendation of whether to
use the other nine balloons? Because this isn't just land. What
happens is these little things pop over the top. That system
sometimes works; sometimes doesn't. We all know that, but it is
a layered border. And how are we handling the possible little
air jumps that we have historically had?
Secondly, and Mr. Aguilar, this would be more in your area.
How do we explain that we are getting record seizures, and the
price of cocaine in the country is dropping, and use in the
emergency rooms aren't dropping? In other words, it is not
clear demand has dropped. We are seizing more, and the price is
low. This is a really interesting challenge. All this comes
across the border. We are not growing cocaine. There may be in
meth other questions; heroin, other questions. Madam Chairlady,
I would like to suggest at some point we do a narcotics focus
because whether it is ports, whether it is open areas, that
clearly this is ours. It isn't just DHS direct. I mean, we have
DEA there. We have NORTHCOM there. El Paso has seven different
intelligence centers alone tracking things along the border. We
have the southwest HIDA to see how they are interrelating
because they are all going after people who are coming across.
Those are a few of the questions. Now I want to make sure we
get a couple of fundamental questions here.
Do you still believe this is going to be completed around
2013? And that it will cost $8 billion? Or are those cost
estimates now rising, sliding?
Mr. Giddens. Yes, sir. That is still the plan that we have
laid out, is 2013 and a $8 billion price tag. We will look each
year to update that based on what we find and any lessons
learned. But that is still what our estimation is. I am still a
little concerned. We have a plan for 2013, but certain
appropriations will be a dry run on how fast that gets
accomplished.
Mr. Souder. Understood. That has been a problem in the
past, you know, but when we are debating an immigration bill,
supposedly it is even moving faster than that, and yet there is
no plan how to actually execute 2013, no exit strategy for the
borders that US-VISIT even have been asked to look at. And yet
we are charging ahead with bills here, pretending like these
things are funded. Like you say, any change in funding, as we
have learned, or any change in modifications like we learned
with the Capitol Visitor Center, every time we change the
specks, every time we delay it a year or two, the costs go up.
That is why, every time, I am going to ask you, is it still
looking at 2013? Is it still looking at $8 billion?
Next question, the 28 miles you are doing, and you are
nearly activating that, that is what you are telling me. So
when I was in Sasabe, since the time I was there, you put that
much in?
Mr. Giddens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. When is the next 28?
Mr. Giddens. The next production deployment will be later
this fall. We are doing a design activity for Tucson and Yuma
sectors, and we split the design activity out so when we go to
production contract, we already have hard firm contracts so we
know what we are buying to minimize the risks on those
production contracts. And we will have those awarded in the
September-October time frame.
Mr. Souder. Are you looking at, in effect, then, 56 miles a
year on a regular basis?
Mr. Giddens. No, sir. Our goal on the technology is to
have--in fact, as you look, we have nine towers out now. We
look to have 70 towers deployed and operational by the end of
calendar year 2008.
Mr. Souder. I want to ask a couple questions on
measurement. When we are looking at the chart up there and when
you look at the 28 miles, one of my constant questions has
been, okay, if the Indianapolis Colts are having problems with
people running left tackle, off tackle, and they take Dwight
Feeney and seven other defensive people and say, we are going
to block up that zone, probably the number of yards gained off
tackle would be zero. But they will be running all over the
field and passing all over the rest of the field. How do you
plan to measure a successful program when just putting nine
towers up means that we are--
Mr. Giddens. Sir, you have asked a great question. And I
hope I will give you a satisfactory answer. We do not believe
that just by putting these nine towers up from these 28 miles
that we can ignore the fact that somebody will say, hey, well,
I will just go half a mile to the west or a half a mile to the
east. That is why, when we are working with Boeing, we have
very particular tests and requirements that they have to
validate and verify to us. And then we join into a partnership
with the Army where they are working for us as our independent
test agent.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask--and you can--anything you can write
additional, we will go through and continue to talk. One of my
questions here is that you are talking about whether the
functional--and you know, you can run sample people through,
which is very important functional aid. But one of the
measures, how many things are actually getting through? In
reality, not that much is likely to come through here. And one
of our challenges, as opposed to a layered system, by
concentrating your 28 miles, you look to 2013, we will be
there. But between now and 2013, it is not that much we can
adapt. In the model--and you don't have to answer this
statement. I would also like to hear an answer to the question,
are you modelling in success beyond just functional aid, the
technology works, but in how the border's moving, do you put
unemployment statistics in? Do you put how an immigration bill
and people think they are going to get amnesty in, do you
measure other variables? What is happening in Mexico, shifts
inside their country? Because to know whether something's
actually working beyond the technological side working, which
would be nice to have the stuff work technologically, we have
had that problem as well--
Mr. Giddens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. I am not arguing it. I would like to know if
that works. It is just, in a broader question, before we invest
$8 billion, you know, are we having an impact and potential
impact? I wanted to see not only for this one 28-mile stretch
but how you are analyzing the border as a whole. Yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. I recognize now the Chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I
thank the witnesses for their testimony.
Mr. Giddens, maybe you can provide this for the committee.
As you know, all of this work requires a subcontracting plan.
And if you would, would you get the subcontracting plan for
Project 28 for us and see exactly how we came out? I am
interested in small business participation and minority
business participation on it.
Mr. Giddens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. The other thing I am interested in is, given
the terrain differential, the climate differential, Mr.
McElwee, can you tell me how you plan to make the adjustments
in technology so that exactly what we need will be available to
us as we go forward?
Mr. McElwee. Yes, sir. We take something called the toolbox
approach, and we have let a number of RFPs for the full range
of cameras, radars, generators, towers, command and control
systems, everything that we need to come up with a solution
that will fit every segment of the border. That toolbox
provides us low-price volume discounts, if you will, so that we
can in fact be prepared to deploy a solution as rapidly as we
complete the designs and receive the funding to proceed. The
toolbox items have a range of requirements. Frankly, many of
the cameras and the radars come out of the Department of
Defense or the military community. And they meet cold weather,
hot weather, wind, sand, all of the specifications that you
would anticipate.
Mr. Thompson. I appreciate that.
Mr. Giddens, have we resolved the issue of whether or not
we have the internal staffing capacity to manage a project this
size? Are we still going to have to rely more on outside
contractors to manage it?
Mr. Giddens. Sir, we are still tracking on the plan that I
had given to you last fall, and in fact, I think we are four
ahead on the--four or six government FTEs ahead of what our
plan was. So we are right--we believe--where we need to be at
this point. We are still building to that end state of 270 and
then looking in 2008 to create a better balance of having more
government employees and support contractors.
Mr. Thompson. But, at this point, this day, we still have
more outside contractors providing oversight on this project
than we have full-time government employees.
Mr. Giddens. Sir, I would phrase that a little differently.
None of our support contractors have an oversight role with any
of the contractors. That oversight is a government
responsibility. We do have at this time nine more support
contractors than we do government employees working in the
program office. But the oversight is a government function, and
the support contractors are doing support work.
Mr. Thompson. But do you understand what I mean?
Mr. Giddens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. At what point do you think we will have more
government employees who do this full time in this capacity
than we have contractors?
Mr. Giddens. I think it would be the January 2008/February
2008 time frame. Our 2008 budget has some FTE increases, and we
will start the recruitment actions for those, and you gave us
some good ideas last time that you allowed us to come by and
chat with you on recruitment. We have been using opportunities.
So we will start those recruitments and try to bring those
folks as early as we can to 2008. That is when we will reach
that tipping point of having more government employees, and it
is an end state, sir, that we share.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I now recognize Mr.
Green from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I also thank the
ranking member and, of course, the Chairman of the full
Committee.
Madam Chair, because I know that time is of the essence, I
will move rather quickly. Let me start by asking about the
Border Patrol agents themselves, the rank-and-file agents. Have
they been consulted? My understanding is that there has been at
least some consternation expressed by some agents with
reference to some of the prior plans that had been developed?
And who can answer quickly?
Mr. Aguilar. I can tell you that, just last week, some of
my representatives met with the president of the union to bring
him up to speed on where we are, where we are going, how this
is going to work, the integration and things of that nature.
So, yes, we have been in contact with them and briefing them on
it.
Mr. Green. And equipment. We will probably not utilize all
of the equipment that we have had for the previous projects as
we move into Project 28. How much, if you know, underutilized
equipment will we have?
Mr. Giddens. Sir, our plan is to take those cameras that
are out there operating today that will procure before SBInet
and integrate those into the solution set, and then they become
part of our responsibility as technology refreshed to replace
that in the future.
Mr. Green. So would your answer be that you will utilize
100 percent of the equipment?
Mr. Giddens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. With reference to the system itself, once the
system is 100 percent in place, how effective will it be?
Because I understand that a system doesn't capture everything
that you desire to have it do. But assuming that you get 100
percent of your paradigm in place, how effective will that be
in terms of being able to monitor and prevent crossings in that
area that we are talking about? What is your prognostication.
Mr. Giddens. 90 to 95 percent.
Mr. Green. And finally, my understanding is that you will
be bringing on a good number of agents. Just for that area, you
will bring on some additional Border Patrol agents. Is this
true?
Mr. Aguilar. The mix of agents that will be placed for
where SBInet goes will actually meet the requirements of that
95 percent capability. Our goal is that, once it goes to 95
percent capability, we will see a spike in arrests, and then if
you will we will teach the criminal element they can no longer
use that part of the border. So arrests should go down. We then
adjust number of agents assigned to that and adjust to where
they are going to be moving to.
Mr. Green. Let me broaden my vision for the purposes of
talking about agents coming onboard. You will be bringing on
more agents at some point for the southern border?
Mr. Aguilar. Oh, yes, sir. We are doing that now.
Mr. Green. If you would, explain to me what process you are
utilizing so as to have a cross-section of representation
within the neophytes that you will have.
Mr. Aguilar. Very good question. That is one of the things
that we are looking at right now, the experience base that is
out there and the experience base that needs to be teaching
this transformation that we are going through. We are being
very diligent in how we resource the sectors of work sectors of
stations that are slated to receive the SBInet solution. On top
of that, we are now hiring annuitants, retired Border Patrol
agents that will bring in the high experience base that we are
losing on a consistent basis. So those are the things that we
are doing to ensure that there is a proper balance with the
incoming--very accelerated new hires that we are getting.
Mr. Green. Do you recruit at colleges and universities,
chief?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. Yes, very much so.
Mr. Green. And how far inland do you come with your
recruitment process? For example, do you come all the way to
Houston, Texas, where we happen to have a university that I
have a deep affinity and relationship with? Do you get that far
into the--
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. We are throughout the United States.
In fact, one of the most recent efforts we do is on NASCAR. We
are basically running a car right next to the National Guard,
to the Marines, to the Army, that type of recruitment also.
Mr. Green. I would like you to give me statistical
information on every university. How many recruits have you
actually brought in from Prairie View? How many from Texas
Southern?
Mr. Aguilar. I don't have those numbers, but we can
probably get them for you.
Mr. Green. Would you kindly do this?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. Thank you very much.
I yield back. Madam Chair, you have been generous with the
time. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. Five minutes to Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think we have bells ringing. So let me
thank all the witnesses and thank the Chairwoman and the
ranking member and try to go directly to some of the questions
that are impacting immigration reform that is being discussed
and debated while we are here.
Chief, one of the features in the bill is 18,000 Border
Patrol agents. I think that is one of the numbers that I am
seeing. But I really want to focus on your thoughts as to why
it is difficult to recruit and retain Border Patrol agents and
what improvements have been made in the professional
development salary increase and promotion opportunities for
Border Patrol agents?
Mr. Aguilar. On the issue of recruitment and retaining,
Congresswoman, the recruitment is a challenge. But we are on
track this year for the 2,500 that we are--2,500 net that we
are slated to hire this year. And for the 3,000 and the 500 to
bring those up to that 18,000 number. We are on target to do
that. And we feel confident we will be able to do that. It is a
challenge but we are taking initiatives to meet those
challenges.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can you just briefly--what is the
challenge?
Mr. Aguilar. The number. The numbers.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That you need so many?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Not the attractiveness of the position?
Mr. Aguilar. That is correct. In other words, getting them
into the pipeline and recruiting them and then getting them
through all the background checks and everything else that is
required, the medicals and the physicals, before we even get
them to the Border Patrol Academy. That is one of the
challenges that we are facing. But we feel very confident that
we are on track to meet those benchmarks that we have set for
ourselves.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Retention?
Mr. Aguilar. We don't really have that much of a problem
with retention. The attrition that is spoken of right now,
there are three levels of attrition that I need to address. One
is the attrition rate that happens from the date of hire to--or
through the academy. And that is a high attrition rate, as it
has always been.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And if you can go quickly, I want to get a
question--
Mr. Aguilar. So there is that attrition rate, and then
there is the attrition rate between the graduation of the
academy and literally the 18th month of service, where people
get onboard, they get on the ground and things of that nature.
That right now is about 20 percent at each one of those. Once
we get past the 18 months, the actual attrition rate for
journeymen Border Patrol agents is only about 4 to 6 percent.
That is a very good attrition rate.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you happy with that professional
development structure?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, and we are continuing to evolve it also.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, chief. It is good to
see you.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr.Giddens, Homeland Security has always
been challenged over the years with this overweight of
contracts. What are your benchmarks for moving away from the
outside contracts? And out of this SBInet, are you seeing the
lack of apprehensions because people are continuing to enter
illegally, or because this program is working and it is
deterring people from coming in?
Mr. Giddens. Yes, ma'am. One of the benchmarks that we use
for SBInet is to really look at, what are some of the core
activities that we need to do within the government? For
example, engineering. So we really need to establish a very
robust technical engineering group to make sure that we have a
cognizant technical authority working the programs. That is one
of the first benchmarks I think that we really took a different
approach on with SBInet to really go out and recruit government
technical lead engineers and systems engineers. And in response
to your question about apprehensions, we believe that is as a
result of increased efficiency from the Border Patrol,
Operation Jump Start, the ending of catch-and-release, so that
OTMs are no longer just released into society, but they are
actually returned to their home country. Because while we see
apprehensions down, the other enforcement indicators--and the
chief may want to chime in--the other enforcement indicators,
such as counter narcotics and others, are on the increase. So
we have increased enforcement activity.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you see Project 28 going on and on and
on and on? Or do you see that being incorporated into the
services of the Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Giddens. I see it going on within CBP and becoming one
of the lynch pins along with the staffing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And using an outside contractor or doing
it inside?
Mr. Giddens. I think using an outside contractor to perform
some of the technical procurement, looking at the cameras,
integrating that, is something that we would continue to do.
But internally we want to have a robust engineering staff to
make sure that we are technically competent customers at the
table.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you to the gentlewoman from Texas.
And now I will recognize another Texan, Mr. Cuellar. We are
about 5 or 6 minutes away from the vote on the floor. So please
ask your questions and what we will try to do is wrap it up at
that point.
Mr. Cuellar. Again, just for the sake of time, thank you
for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to ask just three quick questions and a comparison
between 1 mile of what I call SBI technology, 1 mile of fencing
and then a comparison on cost, time and effectiveness. In other
words, what is the cost of putting 1 mile of SBI technology and
compare it to what is the cost of putting 1 mile of fencing?
That is the first part of the question. Whoever wants to answer
that.
Mr. Giddens. Sir, our estimate for a mile of fence is
approximately $3 million a mile, and for technology, it is, a
million a mile is the round for that.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. What is a time to put up 1 mile of SBI
technology compared time to put 1 mile of fencing?
Mr. Giddens. It is less, sir. I don't have it with me, the
particular answer.
Mr. Cuellar. What is less?
Mr. Giddens. The technology is less.
Mr. Cuellar. A little bit more difficult is my last
question. What is the effectiveness of having 1 mile of SBI
technology compared to 1 mile of fencing? And I see your charts
where you have that coverage before or after. Which would you
say would be more effective? And I know there is a mixture of
personnel, and I have heard that, but if you just made a quick
comparison.
Mr. Giddens. That is a tough comparison because they serve
two different functions. The surveillance allows the Border
Patrol agents and officers to know what is happening, to
understand and have awareness of the situation, whereas the
infrastructure is there to provide delay and not do a response
mechanism.
Mr. Aguilar. Congressman, I would put it this way, if we
are talking about just solely a fence to the solution to the
incursion problems versus a full solution to SBInet, I would
prefer as an operator to have a full solution of SBInet applied
to the border. I would prefer an SBInet solution of which fence
is a piece of the SBI solution in some cases.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I know we have to go. Thank you gentlemen.
Appreciate your work.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you to the gentleman from Texas. And
gentlemen I am sure we could ask a lot more questions. I doubt
I could keep my members from coming back at the next vote
however. I am sure they have got other things to do this
afternoon. Unfortunately, we ran into the vote. We did get a
good amount of information from you. I am sure that the
membership will want to submit some questions in writing. And I
hope you will turn those around quickly, knowing in particular,
as we discussed earlier in the week, that we have this
immigration bill foremost in our thoughts, what we should do
about the borders. So I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony. The members of the subcommittee, if they have
additional questions, will ask for them in writing. Hearing no
further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Questions and Responses
Questions submitted by Hon. Mark E. Souder for Greg Giddens Responses
Question 1: What is the projected timeline for implementation of
SBInet and when should the American people expect to see results?
Response: The goal of SBInet is gain effective control of the
Southwest Border by 2013. SBInet is an integrated system of technology,
expanded staff, and tactical infrastructure designed to achieve
effective control of the border.
Timeline
As of September 1, 2007
CBP had deployed over 130 miles of primary fence,
approximately 112 miles of vehicle barriers, and hundreds of
miles of repaired or new patrol roads
By the end of 2008:
CBP plans to have a total of 370 miles of primary
fence along the Southwest border, a total of 300 miles of
vehicle barriers, and a total of 105 communications, camera and
radar towers
By 2013
CBP will have gained effective control of the border.
Effective control is defined by CBP as the ability to: (1)
detect illegal entries in the United States; (2) identify and
classify these entries to determine the level of threat
involved; (3) efficiently and effectively respond to these
entries; and, (4) bring each event to a satisfactory law
enforcement resolution. To have effective control, all four
elements must be present.
Question 2.: It is likely that there will be a huge reduction in
the amount of illegal traffic in the 28 miles of the initial pilot. How
with DHS determine if this solution is successful?
Response: Project 28 is the initial implementation of SBInet. The
Project's goal is to achieve effective control of 28 miles of border in
the Tucson Sector, where there is an area of high illegal entry.
Project 28 includes 9 relocatable surveillance towers with sensors, one
mobile Forward Operating Base (FOB), C3 capability at Tuscon HQ,
upgrades to 50 agent vehicles, 70 satellite phones, 3 Rapid Response
Transport Vehicles, 4 Unattended Ground Sensor Systems, and connecting
satellite and wireless terrestrial communications.
CBP has been collecting illegal entrant metrics based on the number
of apprehensions in the Project 28 area of responsibility since last
Fall. Operational metrics will be used as baseline data to compare the
trend pattern before and after the deployment of Project 28, so as to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the system. CBP has established a
contract with the Communication and Electronic Research Development and
Engineering Center (CERDEC) under the Army's Special Projects Office to
provide independent, third party testing and evaluation for CBP on
Project 28. The immediate impact of increased communications and
coordination capability will enhance CBP's ability to secure the border
with the current manpower.
Question 3.: Illegal alien traffic is likely to move to the
outlaying areas, ports of entry, and coastal areas. What is DHS doing
to step up enforcement in these areas?
Response: DHS anticipates an impact on operations at the ports of
entry (POEs) as CBP gains greater control of segments of the border
between the POEs. The impact on the POEs will be monitored and
operations will be adjusted as appropriate to address any changes in
alien traffic resulting from the deployment of the SBInet solution. CBP
has established baseline measures for inadmissible alien and narcotics
interceptions at the POEs to track these changes in alien traffic, and
POE requirements are currently being collected and analyzed as part of
the overall SBInet requirements collection process. Future deployment
of technology and infrastructure at the POEs will support overall SBI
efforts to gain effective control of the border by providing enhanced
situational awareness and flexible response capabilities into POE
operations.
Currently DHS has a number of enforcement operations in place along
the Southwest border. These include:
Operation Jump Start: United States National Guard
members deployed along the United States-Mexico border.
Deployment entails assistance in the enforcement of border
security and construction of a fence along the border. They
support the Border Patrol with administrative and civil
engineering projects. By taking over these areas for the Border
Patrol, they are freeing up sworn agents to field units.
Operation Streamline: A multi-agency initiative
targeted at aliens who enter illegally through high-traffic
areas within the Del Rio and Yuma Border Patrol Sectors. Those
illegal aliens who are not released due to humanitarian reasons
will face prosecution for illegal entry. The maximum penalty
for violation of this law is 180 days incarceration. While the
illegal alien is undergoing criminal proceedings, the
individual will also be processed for removal from the United
States.
In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be
implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) at land
and sea ports to strengthen border security and facilitate entry into
the United States for U.S. citizens and legitimate international
travelers at the POEs. Through the deployment of detection capabilities
that will read technology embedded in the new travel documents required
for travel under WHTI, CBP will be able to identify persons attempting
to enter the country using fraudulent documents more efficiently. This
detection capability will also allow CBP to compare all persons
crossing the border against various terrorist and law enforcement
databases. Through WHTI, CBP will enhance the ability to identify and
detect illegal border activity. CBP has also increased training efforts
for CBP personnel at the POEs regarding the detection of fraudulent
documents.
The Department also has assets that support maritime drug
interdiction operations, including those in coastal waters.
Specifically, CBP's Office of Air and Marine (A&M) has assets that
support drug interdiction operations along the west coast. CBP's
maritime assets include highly capable Midnight Express boats that are
ideally configured for small boat drug interdiction. In addition, the
Coast Guard operates a variety of small and large maritime assets that
support maritime assets that support counterdrug efforts along the U.S.
coastal areas.
Question 4.: What is the sustainability of Project 28? What will
this technology look like in 20 years? What is the projected lifecycle
of the major components of Project 28, including the redeployable
sensor towers?
What are the expected maintenance costs of the redeployable sensor
towers and the lifecycle requirements?
Response: It is expected that the service life of sensors
associated with Project 28 ranges from years, as is the case with all
commercial off-the-shelf technology. As these assets approach the end
of their service life, the SBInet program will insert a technology
refresh program to replace obsolete technology with more up-to-date
technology. The SBInet engineering and logistics support programs are
postured to support this approach. SBInet technology will evolve as
technology capabilities expand and become readily available.
The estimated annual cost for the maintenance and support of
Project 28 equipment is $5.7 million.
Question 5.: Please describe the process that was used to test the
long-term viability of the equipment being deployed to the southwest
border under SBInet.
a. Can it withstand the desert climate and other inclement
weather?
b. Who will be responsible for the performance of each tower?
c. Who will respond a sensor fails? How quickly will this
occur?
Response: The SBInet specification contains requirements for this
technology to endure both Southern border desert and Northern border
environmental conditions. Both acceptance and operational test
procedures will verify system performance under these conditions.
The specification also contains the requirements for systems
monitoring, which includes systems failures and performance
degradation. Monitoring will be conducted remotely and displayed at the
Tucson Sector Headquarters. Once a failure or system degradation
occurs, maintenance personnel will be dispatched to restore the system
on a priority basis depending on the classification of the failure
(e.g., critical, non-critical). The response time by the maintenance
personnel will also depend on the classification of system failure.
Question 6.: What have the initial testing results of Project 28
shown? What modifications will have to be made?
Response: Boeing recently conducted a preliminary test readiness
review of the Project 28 system. As an outcome, a list of items has
been compiled which needs to be addressed prior to conducting a system
acceptance test. These items include areas related to system
integration and software complications. Boeing is currently working to
address these issues.
Question 7.: The DHS testimony states that the Science and
Technology Directorate will help reduce SBInet's programmatic risk by
providing cutting edge technologies. Will DHS Science and Technology
coordinate directly with Boeing in its efforts? If not, who at the
Department will be responsible for looking at the technology
recommendations first and then refer them to Boeing?
Response: No, the S&T Directorate will not coordinate directly with
Boeing. Instead, the Directorate will work directly with the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) SBInet Program Office, which will
review technology recommendations provided by the S&T Directorate and
then refer them, as appropriate, to Boeing. The S&T Directorate's goal
is to reduce SBInet programmatic risk by providing cutting-edge
technologies that have been thoroughly researched, developed, tested,
and evaluated for the system-of-systems border solution.
Question 8.: How many agents are participating in Project 28? Is
this an increase or a decrease from the normal agent allocation for
this area?
Response: There are approximately 750 Border Patrol Agents and CBP
Officers assigned to the area Project 28 covers. Project 28 will not
impact the number of CBP personnel assigned to this geographic
location.
Question 9.: How has the Department of Homeland Security used its
waiver authority to expedite placement of infrastructure along the
border? What steps has DHS taken to mitigate the potential negative
impact of fencing on the environment and migrating animals?
Response: The Secretary's has used his waiver authority twice to
date--once, with respect to the San Diego Border Infrastructure System
and secondly, with respect to construction within the Barry M.
Goldwater Range. Each waiver was published in the Federal Register. CBP
employs a number of best management practices to minimize potential
environmental impacts, such as soil erosion control, solid and
hazardous waste prevention, water resources, and biological resources,
to include the protection of local wildlife. The goal of DHS is to make
investments that effectively balance border security with the diverse
needs of the community and environment in a selected area.
Question 10.: The Department plans to build 7 miles of fencing in
Sasabe by the end of 2007 but this does not appear to be part of
Project 28 and it is not clear if there is overlap in the location of
the two projects.
How much fencing and vehicle barriers are included in Project 28?
How much in all of SBInet? How did the Department determine what amount
was appropriate?
Response: DHS plans to build a total of 370 miles of primary fence
along the Southwest border by the end of calendar year (CY) 2008,
including a total of 145 miles of primary fence by the end of 2007. In
addition, DHS will deploy at least 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 70
communications, camera and radar towers by the end of CY 2008. As of
June 2007, CBP has deployed over 130 miles of primary fence, over 112
miles of vehicle barriers, new patrol roads and a variety of technology
along the Southwest border.
To determine the appropriate amount of fencing, SBI's methodology
considered the cost and effectiveness of technology and tactical
infrastructure. In regards to situational awareness, a comprehensive
analysis is conducted that looks at all possible solutions and
determines the best solutions to implement. There are currently plans
for 7 miles of fence and 20 miles of vehicle barriers in Project 28.
Question 11.: Statistics show, and you reinforce this in your
testimony, that while illegal alien apprehensions are down this year,
narcotics seizures are up. The street price of cocaine is falling,
which means that there is more on the street. Briefings from JIATF
South and the Coast Guard show that smugglers are moving drugs in small
boats up the West Coast. Is SBInet planning to address this gap? What
are the current capabilities?
Response: The Department has assets that support maritime drug
interdiction operations, including those in coastal waters.
Specifically, CBP's Office of Air and Marine (A&M) has assets that
support drug interdiction operations along the west coast. CBP's
maritime assets include highly capable Midnight Express boats that are
ideally configured for small boat drug interdiction. In addition, the
Coast Guard operates a variety of small and large maritime assets that
support maritime assets that support counterdrug efforts in US littoral
waters. Besides CPB and Coast Guard maritime assets, CBP and the Coast
Guard have air assets that support counterdrug operations, including
those along the west coast. DHS air assets include a variety of fixed
and rotary wing aircraft including highly capable P-3's that operate
out of Corpus Christi, TX, and are ideally configured to address
maritime smuggling.
In addition to the assets mentioned above, the Department also
supports Joint Interagency Task Force South maritime drug interdiction
operations in the Eastern Pacific area. DHS drug intelligence,
personnel and maritime and air platforms support interagency drug
interdiction operations along the west coast of the United States.
While not part of SBInet, these operations complement efforts to secure
the entry of illegal drugs into the United States.
Question 12.: What role does the Tethered Aerostat Radar System
(TARS) place in securing the border and especially in the counter
mission? Is SBInet considering these existing 5 balloons and do you
have a recommendation on whether the 9 or so balloons that used to
cover the transit zone but are now in cold storage should be restarted?
Is there another capability that can take the place of TARs and provide
this radar coverage along the border and coasts?
Response: Yes, TARS is an effective method that contributes to
border security efforts. The existing TARS capability provides the AMOC
(Air and Marine Operations Center) the ability to detect aircraft,
including small aircraft that enter the radar coverage area of the
aerostats. The TARS array of aerostats provides a unique look-down
detection capability for aircraft that would probably fly undetected by
other radar systems due to ``terrain masking.'' The scope of SBInet is
focused on land crossings. CBP continues to look for alternative ways
to address the issue of low-flying aircraft.
Question 1: What is the projected timeline for implementation of
SBInet and when should the American people expect to see results?
Response: The goal of SBInet is gain effective control of the
Southwest Border by 2013. SBInet is an integrated system of technology,
expanded staff, and tactical infrastructure designed to achieve
effective control of the border.
Timeline
As of September 1, 2007
CBP had deployed over 130 miles of primary fence,
approximately 112 miles of vehicle barriers, and hundreds of
miles of repaired or new patrol roads
By the end of 2008:
CBP plans to have a total of 370 miles of primary
fence along the Southwest border, a total of 300 miles of
vehicle barriers, and a total of 105 communications, camera and
radar towers
By 2013
CBP will have gained effective control of the border.
Effective control is defined by CBP as the ability to: (1)
detect illegal entries in the United States; (2) identify and
classify these entries to determine the level of threat
involved; (3) efficiently and effectively respond to these
entries; and, (4) bring each event to a satisfactory law
enforcement resolution. To have effective control, all four
elements must be present.
Question 2.: It is likely that there will be a huge reduction in
the amount of illegal traffic in the 28 miles of the initial pilot. How
with DHS determine if this solution is successful?
Response: Project 28 is the initial implementation of SBInet. The
Project's goal is to achieve effective control of 28 miles of border in
the Tucson Sector, where there is an area of high illegal entry.
Project 28 includes 9 relocatable surveillance towers with sensors, one
mobile Forward Operating Base (FOB), C3 capability at Tuscon HQ,
upgrades to 50 agent vehicles, 70 satellite phones, 3 Rapid Response
Transport Vehicles, 4 Unattended Ground Sensor Systems, and connecting
satellite and wireless terrestrial communications.
CBP has been collecting illegal entrant metrics based on the number
of apprehensions in the Project 28 area of responsibility since last
Fall. Operational metrics will be used as baseline data to compare the
trend pattern before and after the deployment of Project 28, so as to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the system. CBP has established a
contract with the Communication and Electronic Research Development and
Engineering Center (CERDEC) under the Army's Special Projects Office to
provide independent, third party testing and evaluation for CBP on
Project 28. The immediate impact of increased communications and
coordination capability will enhance CBP's ability to secure the border
with the current manpower.
Question 3.: Illegal alien traffic is likely to move to the
outlaying areas, ports of entry, and coastal areas. What is DHS doing
to step up enforcement in these areas?
Response: DHS anticipates an impact on operations at the ports of
entry (POEs) as CBP gains greater control of segments of the border
between the POEs. The impact on the POEs will be monitored and
operations will be adjusted as appropriate to address any changes in
alien traffic resulting from the deployment of the SBInet solution. CBP
has established baseline measures for inadmissible alien and narcotics
interceptions at the POEs to track these changes in alien traffic, and
POE requirements are currently being collected and analyzed as part of
the overall SBInet requirements collection process. Future deployment
of technology and infrastructure at the POEs will support overall SBI
efforts to gain effective control of the border by providing enhanced
situational awareness and flexible response capabilities into POE
operations.
Currently DHS has a number of enforcement operations in place along
the Southwest border. These include:
Operation Jump Start: United States National Guard
members deployed along the United States-Mexico border.
Deployment entails assistance in the enforcement of border
security and construction of a fence along the border. They
support the Border Patrol with administrative and civil
engineering projects. By taking over these areas for the Border
Patrol, they are freeing up sworn agents to field units.
Operation Streamline: A multi-agency initiative
targeted at aliens who enter illegally through high-traffic
areas within the Del Rio and Yuma Border Patrol Sectors. Those
illegal aliens who are not released due to humanitarian reasons
will face prosecution for illegal entry. The maximum penalty
for violation of this law is 180 days incarceration. While the
illegal alien is undergoing criminal proceedings, the
individual will also be processed for removal from the United
States.
In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be
implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) at land
and sea ports to strengthen border security and facilitate entry into
the United States for U.S. citizens and legitimate international
travelers at the POEs. Through the deployment of detection capabilities
that will read technology embedded in the new travel documents required
for travel under WHTI, CBP will be able to identify persons attempting
to enter the country using fraudulent documents more efficiently. This
detection capability will also allow CBP to compare all persons
crossing the border against various terrorist and law enforcement
databases. Through WHTI, CBP will enhance the ability to identify and
detect illegal border activity. CBP has also increased training efforts
for CBP personnel at the POEs regarding the detection of fraudulent
documents.
The Department also has assets that support maritime drug
interdiction operations, including those in coastal waters.
Specifically, CBP's Office of Air and Marine (A&M) has assets that
support drug interdiction operations along the west coast. CBP's
maritime assets include highly capable Midnight Express boats that are
ideally configured for small boat drug interdiction. In addition, the
Coast Guard operates a variety of small and large maritime assets that
support maritime assets that support counterdrug efforts along the U.S.
coastal areas.
Question 4.: What is the sustainability of Project 28? What will
this technology look like in 20 years? What is the projected lifecycle
of the major components of Project 28, including the redeployable
sensor towers?
What are the expected maintenance costs of the redeployable sensor
towers and the lifecycle requirements?
Response: It is expected that the service life of sensors
associated with Project 28 ranges from years, as is the case with all
commercial off-the-shelf technology. As these assets approach the end
of their service life, the SBInet program will insert a technology
refresh program to replace obsolete technology with more up-to-date
technology. The SBInet engineering and logistics support programs are
postured to support this approach. SBInet technology will evolve as
technology capabilities expand and become readily available.
The estimated annual cost for the maintenance and support of
Project 28 equipment is $5.7 million.
Question 5.: Please describe the process that was used to test the
long-term viability of the equipment being deployed to the southwest
border under SBInet.
a. Can it withstand the desert climate and other inclement
weather?
b. Who will be responsible for the performance of each tower?
c. Who will respond a sensor fails? How quickly will this
occur?
Response: The SBInet specification contains requirements for this
technology to endure both Southern border desert and Northern border
environmental conditions. Both acceptance and operational test
procedures will verify system performance under these conditions.
The specification also contains the requirements for systems
monitoring, which includes systems failures and performance
degradation. Monitoring will be conducted remotely and displayed at the
Tucson Sector Headquarters. Once a failure or system degradation
occurs, maintenance personnel will be dispatched to restore the system
on a priority basis depending on the classification of the failure
(e.g., critical, non-critical). The response time by the maintenance
personnel will also depend on the classification of system failure.
Question 6.: What have the initial testing results of Project 28
shown? What modifications will have to be made?
Response: Boeing recently conducted a preliminary test readiness
review of the Project 28 system. As an outcome, a list of items has
been compiled which needs to be addressed prior to conducting a system
acceptance test. These items include areas related to system
integration and software complications. Boeing is currently working to
address these issues.
Question 7.: The DHS testimony states that the Science and
Technology Directorate will help reduce SBInet's programmatic risk by
providing cutting edge technologies. Will DHS Science and Technology
coordinate directly with Boeing in its efforts? If not, who at the
Department will be responsible for looking at the technology
recommendations first and then refer them to Boeing?
Response: No, the S&T Directorate will not coordinate directly with
Boeing. Instead, the Directorate will work directly with the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) SBInet Program Office, which will
review technology recommendations provided by the S&T Directorate and
then refer them, as appropriate, to Boeing. The S&T Directorate's goal
is to reduce SBInet programmatic risk by providing cutting-edge
technologies that have been thoroughly researched, developed, tested,
and evaluated for the system-of-systems border solution.
Question 8.: How many agents are participating in Project 28? Is
this an increase or a decrease from the normal agent allocation for
this area?
Response: There are approximately 750 Border Patrol Agents and CBP
Officers assigned to the area Project 28 covers. Project 28 will not
impact the number of CBP personnel assigned to this geographic
location.
Question 9.: How has the Department of Homeland Security used its
waiver authority to expedite placement of infrastructure along the
border? What steps has DHS taken to mitigate the potential negative
impact of fencing on the environment and migrating animals?
Response: The Secretary's has used his waiver authority twice to
date--once, with respect to the San Diego Border Infrastructure System
and secondly, with respect to construction within the Barry M.
Goldwater Range. Each waiver was published in the Federal Register. CBP
employs a number of best management practices to minimize potential
environmental impacts, such as soil erosion control, solid and
hazardous waste prevention, water resources, and biological resources,
to include the protection of local wildlife. The goal of DHS is to make
investments that effectively balance border security with the diverse
needs of the community and environment in a selected area.
Question 10.: The Department plans to build 7 miles of fencing in
Sasabe by the end of 2007 but this does not appear to be part of
Project 28 and it is not clear if there is overlap in the location of
the two projects.
How much fencing and vehicle barriers are included in Project 28?
How much in all of SBInet? How did the Department determine what amount
was appropriate?
Response: DHS plans to build a total of 370 miles of primary fence
along the Southwest border by the end of calendar year (CY) 2008,
including a total of 145 miles of primary fence by the end of 2007. In
addition, DHS will deploy at least 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 70
communications, camera and radar towers by the end of CY 2008. As of
June 2007, CBP has deployed over 130 miles of primary fence, over 112
miles of vehicle barriers, new patrol roads and a variety of technology
along the Southwest border.
To determine the appropriate amount of fencing, SBI's methodology
considered the cost and effectiveness of technology and tactical
infrastructure. In regards to situational awareness, a comprehensive
analysis is conducted that looks at all possible solutions and
determines the best solutions to implement. There are currently plans
for 7 miles of fence and 20 miles of vehicle barriers in Project 28.
Question 11.: Statistics show, and you reinforce this in your
testimony, that while illegal alien apprehensions are down this year,
narcotics seizures are up. The street price of cocaine is falling,
which means that there is more on the street. Briefings from JIATF
South and the Coast Guard show that smugglers are moving drugs in small
boats up the West Coast. Is SBInet planning to address this gap? What
are the current capabilities?
Response: The Department has assets that support maritime drug
interdiction operations, including those in coastal waters.
Specifically, CBP's Office of Air and Marine (A&M) has assets that
support drug interdiction operations along the west coast. CBP's
maritime assets include highly capable Midnight Express boats that are
ideally configured for small boat drug interdiction. In addition, the
Coast Guard operates a variety of small and large maritime assets that
support maritime assets that support counterdrug efforts in US littoral
waters. Besides CPB and Coast Guard maritime assets, CBP and the Coast
Guard have air assets that support counterdrug operations, including
those along the west coast. DHS air assets include a variety of fixed
and rotary wing aircraft including highly capable P-3's that operate
out of Corpus Christi, TX, and are ideally configured to address
maritime smuggling.
In addition to the assets mentioned above, the Department also
supports Joint Interagency Task Force South maritime drug interdiction
operations in the Eastern Pacific area. DHS drug intelligence,
personnel and maritime and air platforms support interagency drug
interdiction operations along the west coast of the United States.
While not part of SBInet, these operations complement efforts to secure
the entry of illegal drugs into the United States.
Question 12.: What role does the Tethered Aerostat Radar System
(TARS) place in securing the border and especially in the counter
mission? Is SBInet considering these existing 5 balloons and do you
have a recommendation on whether the 9 or so balloons that used to
cover the transit zone but are now in cold storage should be restarted?
Is there another capability that can take the place of TARs and provide
this radar coverage along the border and coasts?
Response: Yes, TARS is an effective method that contributes to
border security efforts. The existing TARS capability provides the AMOC
(Air and Marine Operations Center) the ability to detect aircraft,
including small aircraft that enter the radar coverage area of the
aerostats. The TARS array of aerostats provides a unique look-down
detection capability for aircraft that would probably fly undetected by
other radar systems due to ``terrain masking.'' The scope of SBInet is
focused on land crossings. CBP continues to look for alternative ways
to address the issue of low-flying aircraft.
Questions submitted by Hon. Mark E. Souder for Jerry W. McElwee
Responses
Question 1.: What is the projected timeline for implementation of
SBInet?
Response: Current DHS plans call for completion of the Southern
Border by 2013.
Question 2.: How will Boeing measure the success of SBInet?
Response: Success will be indicated by (1) increased ability to
detect illegal entries when they occur; (2) increased ability to
identify what is detected by the sensors; (3) increased ability to
classify the threat posed by the detected crossers; and (4) increased
ability of the Border Patrol to apprehend and resolve illegal crossers
identified by the system. Metrics will be kept on all the activities.
Question 3.: What is the sustainability of Project 28? What will
this technology look like in 20 years? What is the projected life cycle
of the major components of Project 28, including the redeployable
sensor towers?
Response: P-28 is readily sustained. The SBInet team selected
components for the redeployable towers that are among the most reliable
and effective technology available. The propane-fueled electrical power
source minimizes potential pollution issues and allows extended
operation without frequent re-supply or services.
Predicting the future of surveillance and command and control
technology that is based primarily on the progression of computer
processors is extremely difficult, even for the next five years. That
said, Moore's Law for advances in computer processor performance
predicts 10 to 12 new generations of computers within the next 20-year
span. Each generation will significantly increase the ability to
extract increasing amounts of information from traditional sensor
systems. For example, cameras will collect more detailed information
about the items or subjects upon which they focus. That data in turn
can be compared and contrasted with increasingly greater amounts of
data to first detect, then identify and classify those attempting to
enter the country illegally. Additionally, small seemingly unrelated
events or activities will be more readily correlated with other
fragments of data to build a composite view of reality based on
millions of pieces of data collected over time from a variety of
sources.
The projected life cycle of each component is different and some
have not been predicted. The expected Mean Time between Failure (MTBF)
and expected lifespan of several major components are listed below:
Predicted Cost-
Component MTBF Effective Lifespan
Power Generator 1,000 hrs 5 Years
LORROS Camera 4,000 hrs 5 Years
MSTAR Radar 14,000 hrs 10 Years
Redeployable Tower 5,000 hrs 20 Years
P-28 redeployable towers are going to be replaced with long-term,
fixed towers in the Tucson Sector. The redeployable assets that
constitute P-28 will be used to increase operational availability of
other sectors, in the event that fixed assets are inoperable for a
period of time due to vandalism, etc.
Question 4.: What are the expected maintenance costs of the
redeployable sensor towers, and the life cycle requirements?
Response: The annual sustainment costs (fuel, repair parts, routine
services, etc.) for the redeployable sensor towers (assuming they
operate 24/7/365) are expected to be approximately 13 to 18% of the
total acquisition cost per year. Obviously, as they are replaced with
fixed surveillance assets, the sustainment costs will decline.
At the system level, SBInet sustainment costs are expected to
decline over time as the power efficiency of major components
increases, when more reliable technology becomes available; and, as
advancements in surveillance technology reduce the overall quantities
of equipment necessary to provide continuous coverage of large areas.
Question 5.: Please describe the process that was used to test the
long-term viability of the equipment being deployed to the Southwest
Border under SBInet.
Response: The primary sensors, LORROS camera and MSTAR radar were
selected on the basis of their proven field record in demanding
environments. The LORROS camera system has been widely used in arid
desert, marine, cold, humid, and tropical environments. The MSTAR
ground surveillance radar is a proven man-portable design with recent
applications in Iraq, Afghanistan, Canada and other challenging
environments. Both items are among the most reliable and certainly most
capable systems available on the market today.
a. Can it withstand the desert climate and other inclement
weather?
Response: The sensor hardware selected (cameras and radars)
that is located in exposed environments has a demonstrated
capability to operate in the desert environment. Support
equipment (computers, routers, etc,) that is not capable of
surviving in an uncontrolled environment has been placed in
environmental enclosures that have redundant cooling. The
environmental enclosures also provide protection from sand/dust
and rain exposure.
b. Who will be responsible for checking the performance of each
tower?
Response: The Boeing SBI Test and Evaluation organization is
performing a P-28 System Acceptance Test (SAT) prior to the
declaration of the Initial Operational Capability (IOC). The
SAT test plan requires that all subsystem functionality be
fully tested in accordance with the P-28 System Verification
Test Procedure (D333-100006-1). The subsystems include nine (9)
towers, a Common Operating Picture (COP), a mobile COP, a
Forward Operating Base (FOB), and a communications systems.
The tower functionality that is being tested is as follows:
Tower pedestal control--elevation and azimuth.
LORROS camera modes--black-and-white, color, infrared.
Camera range and focus.
Security camera range and focus.
Loud-hailer/annunciator.
Laser range finder range testing.
MSTAR radar detection and range testing.
MSTAR to LORROS camera automated slew-to-click
testing.
All subsystem functionality is demonstrated by using
the network communications systems and COP system.
c. Who will respond if/when a sensor fails? How quickly will
this occur?
Response: Following delivery of this equipment to the
government, maintenance, response and equipment restoration/
repair will be performed by a combination of Boeing and third-
party vendors. The selection of specific vendors will be based
on a variety of factors, including geographic area, small
business considerations, warranty status, and other factors.
Boeing and CBP have established an Integrated Logistics Support
Management Team as a government-industry partnership, which
includes a 24/7/365 Call Center. All failures and calls for
assistance will be managed through the Call Center. The target
response time for all calls for maintenance or repair by the
maintenance provider is 30 minutes with an on-site response
goal of 2 hours.
Question 6.: What is the methodology being used to determine which
technologies and infrastructure will be placed in which locations?
Response: The locations for sensing technology have been determined
through detailed analytical assessment of the candidate lines-of sight
and fields of regard. Promising sites were inspected by field teams for
physical suitability. The site assessments have been coordinated with
CBP personnel to confirm the tactical value of the sites chosen
relative to the expected incursions.
Question 7.: How much fencing and vehicle barrier are included in
Project 28?
Response: None.
Question 8.: Through previous trips to the border, the Committee
has learned that technology and geography have limited the Border
Patrol's ability to encrypt transmissions, which means they generally
talk on open radio channels, allowing anyone with a scanner, including
smugglers, to listen in. What is being done as part of SBInet to
address this serious security and agent safety issue?
Response: SBInet enhances Border Patrol communications through two
means.
The first provides improved situational awareness to Border Patrol
agents via a Common Operating Picture (COP). The COP, which provides
operational, situational, intelligence and investigative information
and alerts agents to illegal entries into the United States, is
transmitted to laptops in agent vehicles using secure wireless
networks. Towers within Project 28 are equipped with wireless data
access points. These provide non-line-of-sight Worldwide
Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMax) transmission of COP data.
SBInet communications employ encryption algorithms that are compliant
with the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS 140-2, FIPS
197). Additionally, some parts of the SBInet system employ encrypted
channels and data streams which are, in turn, carried inside of
encrypted transmissions systems.
The second communications enhancement for agents within the Project
28 area is satellite phones. These phones do not require line-of-site
or cell phone towers to ensure connectivity, and therefore provide more
consistent coverage of voice communications. Additionally, they do not
leverage standard Radio Frequencies which can be intercepted by
scanners.
Voice-over-satellite communications and encrypted COP
communications enable information sharing and coordination between
CBP's three primary operational elements: the Office of Border Patrol,
the Office of Field Operations and the Office of Air and Marine
Operations, while mitigating security and agent safety risks.
Question 9.: In your testimony, you describe the systems
engineering and design approach that your company has developed over
time and used successfully on other large, complex projects. Please
discuss another project that Boeing has managed, and compare it to the
operational challenges of SBInet, given the complexity of the situation
on the Southwest Border.
Response: Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) is an example of
Boeing using its systems engineering and design approach to execute a
very technically complex and demanding program. For GMD, which is a
large-scale, anti-ballistic missile system for defending the country
against nuclear ICBM missiles, Boeing first established a robust set of
requirements for the system, decomposed them to lower-level components,
and conducted design reviews to assess the correct design response to
those requirements. As in the SBInet case, those components that were
``off the shelf'' and could be adapted to the new application were
integrated into the design. For other components, such as the
interceptor booster and ``kill vehicle,'' Boeing tasked major suppliers
to develop and test those components under Boeing's technical
management oversight and direction. Each element, such as the command
and control system, interceptor, radars, EO/IR sensors, and
communications elements, which in many cases are systems in their own
right, was integrated together into a ``System of Systems'' engineering
solution. Verification and validation of the system is done through
live flight tests where the system has demonstrated success by
``hitting a bullet with a bullet'' many miles out in space. This level
of success with a system as complex as GMD could only be achieved by
applying a proven systems engineering process. This same process is
being used to design, build and field a complex SBInet system.
Requirements have been established, design solutions are being
completed, and test plans being formulated.
Question 10.: In your testimony, you describe the redeployable
sensor towers and associated equipment as ``highly reliable.'' What
assurances can you give this committee, and the American people, that
we will not see another case of poorly operated, poorly maintained
technology being deployed at the border? How well will this equipment
perform after 5 years in 110-degree desert climate?
Response: The P-28 COTS equipment selected was designed to operate
within the environment where it will be deployed. The CBP/Boeing's
Integrated Logistics Support Management Team approach defines a process
that normalizes maintenance, repair, and technology insertion and
obsolescence management to sustain improved reliability,
maintainability and availability on all systems. By combining CBP and
Boeing ILS capabilities, SBInet will have 24/7/365 monitoring of system
performance along with a maintenance infrastructure to sustain the CBP
mission
Question 11.: On November 15, 2006, in your testimony before the
Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight in the 109th
Congress, you assured Members that Boeing had the following items in
its SBI ``toolkit'': sensors, communications systems, information
technology, tactical infrastructure, including roads, barriers, and
fencing, and command and control capabilities. What has changed since
November 2006? What reason can you offer for removing ``roads,
barriers, and fencing'' from the toolkit used in Project 28?
Response: Roads, barriers, and fencing are all components in the
SBInet design toolkit and are essential elements of the total SBInet
solution. P-28 is a fixed-price, limited proof-of-concept pilot
project. We were allotted a maximum of $20M to produce a project
designed to demonstrate our capabilities. We selected a ``Virtual
Fence'' approach, coupled with the situational awareness of a Common
Operational Picture as having the best overall value within the given
cost parameters. In designing the P-28 solution, we emphasized the use
of elements with high potential to help ourselves and CBP gain valuable
insights and information related to our approach. We did not view the
costs and construction periods associated with roads, fences and
barriers to be compatible with the objectives of this pilot project in
even a limited implementation.
As we move forward, we will employ roads, fences and barriers
wherever they are needed to ensure either deterrence or successful law
enforcement resolution of an illegal crossing. Our technical solutions
will include surveillance of these infrastructure components in order
to both secure them and to ensure appropriate and timely response to
attempts to breach them.
Question 12.: If other equipment is needed to improve the SBI
mission, Boeing has assured this committee it has other tools in mind
and can modify the plan. To your knowledge, what other equipment is
readily available and potentially valuable that is not a component of
Project 28?
Response: Products used in securing the border are under constant
improvement through the vendor's internal research and development
programs. Among the new developments that will be available this year
are WiMax 802.16-compatible components for wireless data transfers that
were not readily available at the time Boeing put together the original
proposal. We anticipate other technologies will be matured sufficiently
for use in SBInet, such as non-intrusive lie detection, image
enhancements for long-range cameras, license plate readers, portable
biometric readers, false document identification, and precision imaging
digital signal processing for radars, just to name a few.
Boeing and CBP are instituting a technology-integrated product team
that will continue to assess the product developments in industry, in
our national labs and through the Science and Technology Directorate at
DHS. Those improvements that dramatically increase performance and
reliability at reduced cost will become candidates for updates and
improvements to the SBInet Toolbox.
Question 13: I understand that the sensor towers in Project 28 are
using satellite imagery to track movement of illegal aliens. I am also
aware that for future SBI missions, Boeing plans to use existing ISIS
towers, which use microwave-transmission technologies instead. Please
describe the difference between satellite and microwave-transmission,
and the benefits and risks associated with both technologies on the
border.
Response: Satellite imagery is not used to track movement of
illegal aliens in the P-28 solution. Satellite imagery is used to
provide the appropriate scenario background for the screens that
display and track indications of illegal aliens that are detected by a
variety of sensors, including radar, seismic, acoustic, infrared, and
others. The P-28 solution employs mobile/relocatable sensor towers that
can be repositioned to alternative locations on the border as required.
The mobility aspect of these towers requires an equally mobile
communications means. Satellite communications is the media of choice
for this requirement.
Once the locations are proven to be effective vantage points from
which to detect illegal activities, the intent is to replace them with
permanent, fixed towers. These permanent towers, as in the case of ISIS
towers, will employ microwave communications to carry the sensor,
video, and other signals back to the Station and Sector Headquarters
for processing and monitoring. The microwave systems are less costly.
Question 14.: One aspect of Project 28 is using contractors to
provide transportation services to move apprehended aliens from the
field to the detention center. How much do you estimate that this will
cost?
Response: The use of contractors to provide transportation services
is not part of the P-28 Task Order. It will be part of the follow-on
operational and maintenance contract.
We did include three Rapid Response Transports (RRTs) to be used on
a case-by-case basis, where access may be more difficult. However, the
operators for these vehicles will be government personnel.