Hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee - H.R. 3916, Next Generation Border and Martime Security Technologies

Interview

Hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee - H.R. 3916, Next Generation Border and Martime Security Technologies

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. LAURA RICHARDSON (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. First of all, I'd like to take a moment to commend Congressman Hall for bringing forward this legislation, H.R. 3916. I think nothing is more important when we talk about setting appropriate priorities, particularly having to do with research and funding, taxpayer funding that's going towards this, that it's done in the right way. So congratulations, Congressman Hall, on your efforts today.

I simply have one question for Mr. Hooks, and that is when technology is developed by the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Group, how is it that the technology performance is validated? And let me preface what I'm saying to give you an example of -- I represent Southern California, and we recently had a spill in Northern California where, you know, a bridge was hit and oil was dumped, and the Coast Guards were supposed to have been there, and, you know, first of all, they shouldn't even have run into the bridge to begin with. Then oil was dispersed into the water. No communication was made to the public for eight years. It was just a comedy of errors, and when I say comedy, I don't mean it in a humorous way. It was a disgraceful way, in my opinion.

So I'm concerned with the tremendous amount of funding that we use to, you know, utilize these technologies to protect our borders, but sometimes actually validating the performance of all this work is where we have a shortfall. So if you could tell us a little bit about what your department is doing in that aspect and how you work with other groups or independent agencies to assist us in this effort.

MR. HOOKS: Yes, ma'am. It's important -- we totally agree -- to effectively test the technologies before they're placed in an operational environment with the different components.

To do that we use several different means. Underneath each of the Capstone IPTs we've created project IPTs where program managers from the components, such as the Border Patrol, and program managers in S&T are coming together with appropriate end users and defining the specifics of that equipment, the requirements that it needs to meet.

Commensurate with that, they also need to define what are the appropriate test and evaluation procedures that should be followed, testing of that equipment, both in the laboratory setting, and out in an operational setting so that by the time that equipment is transferred to the Border Patrol for procurement they can be confident that it works correctly. So we would encourage them, and surely they would participate in that evaluation of the testing of equipment as we go forward so that they can feel confident at the point that they receive it, that it works properly.

One example is we have a test bed down at the Southwest border at Douglas where we take new technologies down there. We give them to the Border Patrol agents. Our Science and Technology people will be there, but they are using them in the background of their normal day- to-day operations giving us feedback on it and helping us to evaluate the equipment to make sure that it's operating effectively.

REP. RICHARDSON: And when you say they give you feedback, are these the actual ground patrol officers who are providing you with the -- (audio break)?

MR. HOOKS: Yes, yes, down in the Tucson sector, either the sector chief -- his specific agency has a component down at the Douglas test site that's specifically engaged with this. (He's with ?) Border Patrol agents in that sector. They're using the technology, and we get direct feedback from them.

REP. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Mr. Hooks. I yield back my time, Mr. Mitchell.

REP. MITCHELL: Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Gingrey for five minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source