are there -- how do you keep your skills and expertise current? i mean, because we are getting into the nitty-gritty technicalities that are quite complex. >> justice kennedy things, i like very much the fact that people five, any test case, where it was one of these, did know but medical care or we had very computer cases, we had seven degrees in that case. and one of the patent -- they will try to educate us. all kinds of different groups on both sides. and once we set up an exhibition in the library so judges could come up and figure how to work the computers in a particular way that was necessary.

and in a patent case, one of the lawyers was a very good idea, in the district court, it was still there, put a patent on the internet so they did a diagram. so anyone, anyone in the world including the judges could press a button and you would actually see how this thing worked in practice. so others, one, they're using these different methods but they know it's important to educate us, and they have a mic is breeze and other methods if necessary to try to get us up to speed. >> and part of the -- highly skilled attorneys who spent years on the case and they have an hour together, a half hour per side to give us their argument. but there has to be a room in the law for general us. we are jealous in a specialized world. and as justice breyer said there educated by council. >> and it's important to look at both sides before you start.

>> thank you. you made me nervous in the chair we start to say about a famous or an important case next year. >> what we are expecting speak as i thought about whether i could run for president or not. [laughter] there's one in puerto rico that has unsettled by the panel. justice thomas quoted, i asked him that question as i do you guys, you generally know that every year, every hearing. and justice thomas answered by saying you can serve on the supreme court. we never answer them. they also say certain justice breyer came very close to saying i don't see why not. but that does bring up an interesting question, forgive me for asking it if it is out of order. any question like that you first have to wait to elect me president, and then the case comes up? seriously. or can someone bring up the case? my understand, i'm not a lawyer, there have to be somewhat agreed first so does the person get

agreed at the time i declare my candidacy would will have to be elected first? >> i'll tell you there are some lawyers i can recommend to the advice you. >> why would anybody be agreed if you were running for president? >> just -- [laughter] i'm not talking about whether i was born. i think folks on the right would be very unhappy. >> or maybe i would be easy to defeat. so i won't get an answer that and is going to have to declare my candidacy. >> it does. no person except a natural born citizen. >> i'm a natural born citizen. >> okay. >> i can't believe we just had a species that you are a national -- natural born citizen. >> that's what i believe i am, but it's interesting what those people in the back have a story. >> so are we to take it this is

your announcement to run, to run in the primary against the president? >> not in 2012. i will wait. >> and i should point out there are some people who think that means everyone except a naturalized citizen. it has a broader or more narrow meaning. spent on a serious note there are some legal scholars who have told me that in the 1940s the puerto rico situation was resettled again where natural born was put in the language. natural born. okay, so i have to get my campaign ready. but before i do that, let me have a platform. so let me ask you a question that i always ask. in past years i continue to be interested in seeing an increase in a number of minorities selected for supreme court selection. are there any new initiatives to reach out to minority law students and graduates in the federal judiciary as a whole? and the second question to that, i know the supreme court justices lecture and go to

commencement exercise and so. do they use the opportunity to invite, give young people into the law profession, especially if they're in law schools, and to apply for clerkships? >> when we go to law schools, we often go to smaller law schools than to spend a day or two with a student and so forth. i always encourage the students to apply for clerkships for the federal district courts and the court of appeal. i tell clerks, you will really learn a lot in the trial court in which never learned in the court of appeal. the court of appeals, party, the district court has to do a lot of writing a lot -- they write a lot of opinions. plus you'll learn how to try? i think district court clerkships are one of the best ways to train, to train lawyers. i encouraged him to do that.

>> it's not necessary they apply for clerkships because there are a lot of people who want to apply. it's hard for me to say what a statistical and what isn't. when i started i've had quite a few minority clerks, and over the years it was difficult at the beginning to find people who would come in it and then it got a lot easier, frankly to face the problem. and then in more recent two or three years i began to wonder, wait a minute here, where maybe there is a communications are some things. so i'm going to back to first let's get the word out spent without having this to us, have a come back to the old problem which i understood was that basically harbored in jail where the schools -- harvard and

he'll, has that changed? >> i frankly don't think that's the problem. i was thinking i had a clerk from kansas last year, two years ago, kansas university, and i thought that a smaller law school for decades, night law school. i know how hard the students work and how committed they are. i have betrayed the biggest schools, harvard, yell mac, michigan, nyu, stanford themselves go out and a very good at recruiting minorities. your chances of getting minority clerk out of those schools is ask what better than some of the smaller schools. it works -- >> it's kind of counterintuitive. >> let me just ask you one more question. your website, last you about this time during the website was making a big splash. how has it been and what are the

comments that you're getting from folks? is it being used? is a positive thing that is going on? >> very, very. like 59 million hits a month. our guests, i don't know, close to a billion or something a year. some huge number of hits. unbelievable. the number you just had was looking at the opinions, 100 -- [talking over each other] >> today you will get about 4 million from puerto rico alone. [laughter] >> i just want to take this opportunity to thank you. i have no for the question. for your service to our country, and we always meet in a lighthearted fashion where we know the issue is very series. we do ask series question. we get serious answers. i certainly got one. know, what i do personally, and on behalf, i know speak for everyone else, the chairwoman

will lead us in saying that we respect your service to our country and we take very seriously the fact that we still live in a place on earth where we have laws, we have respect for the law, and we have, we have evolved and we disagree and we yell and we scream. but, you know, something, we would rather be here than anywhere else and that's so important to all of us. thank you. >> thank you so much. well said, mr. shavonda. mr. womack? >> i agree with the comments for my colleague from new york that it is the genius i think of our country that we have the separation of powers and the constitution. and it's remarkable what we've accomplished as a nation. on the subject of the phenomena of social media, i was predisposed to asking the question, do you tweak, but i

think perhaps the first question should be can you tweak? i'm not even sure ethically if you can. but are the advances of the social media changing how you do your work? >> i suppose in an indirect sense that our word is sometimes reflected and discuss any social media in that different context. but the law lives in the consciousness of the people, and to the extent there's greater interests and greater awareness and public affairs and that finds its way into the social media, i think that's also good. >> i mean, i did, i have a tweeting thing because i was very interested in the iranian revolution. remember when they just had this

uprising, a little over a year ago, and i wanted -- i sat to fascinate because you could actually look through the tweeting and you could see what was going on. you could see the file and. you could see a woman killed. it was terrible. in fact, i want to keep track of that and i sat there totally fascinated the only way you could do it was go through a tweet. so my name is there. from time to time, i don't know how to take it off, i get requests can we follow you? so i think that's very nice some people would like to follow me actually. it's quite flattering, i wisely say no, it's not a good idea. and the same is true with facebook. it's probably not a good idea for judges, so they will resist the temptation to publicize themselves because we really speak for the law. and that is -- i do fear, you

know, i wouldn't want to of followers on tweet where people are going on the facebook page but from a chilled and i can get in touch with them anyway. >> finally, recognizing that some young people that are in this room today, and i'm just making an assumption that press they are law students are i would make that assumption, not knowing for sure, and given the fact that in the health care debate, and i've seen and talked to a lot of medical professionals who tell me a lot of potential physicians are not going into the general practice to but instead more specialization. what recommendations can you give to the prospective attorneys? articulating through law school, that would be useful as they make career decisions. >> the law is becoming more specialized, and that means that

whatever area of human affairs, human history and human intellect and learning what you're interested in, there's a place for you in the law. harvard where justice breyer was on the faculty, i think has 400 courses, law and medicine, law and animal rights, whatever you're interested in. and that's part of the genius of the american system, for us, law is not a threat. it's a promise. it's an aspiration. and law training, even if you do not end up practicing, can be rewarding. i'd love to practice law. i miss my clients.

>> we are asked this question quite a lot. we have very similar answers. i usually tell the law students do any great profession. i think it's the only great profession, but it is a great profession. for the reason that you in it is because it requires you to have a head and requires you to have a hard, and if you don't pay attention and you should head nobody will want your service. so don't go into this profession. but if you only have the head, and are just serving yourself, you shouldn't be in the possession -- profession. i think they understand what i mean, and then i hope you know that will register for a while, and that will maybe embody that. we will see in a few years. >> sage advice. i think we could use some of that as members from time to time as well. thank you, madam chairman,.

>> thanks mr. womack. mr. yoder. >> thank you, madam chairman, have had a couple of questions related to politics, impact on the court, i'm sure from time to time those issues seek into discussion on corporate my first question would be what you think about our current confirmation system that we have in this country? some of the states do it differently, for example, kansas doesn't allow the senate to approve of their state court appointments. they have a nominating committee that's made up of bar members and of members appointed by the governor who then made three recommendations to the governor and governor picks one of the three. the folks in the state argued that's far superior to the federal system. i guess my first question, what are your thoughts on the confirmation system we use? and isn't perfect? -- is it perfect? how would you do it differently?

if you can comment on these matters, and what do you think about the election of judges in some of our lower courts at the state level across the country? >> i'm cautious about saying what i think should be the system. the state our laboratory for examination, and we can see the idea and wisdom of others as it plays out. my home state of california has hud sherry that is bigger than the entire federal judiciary. all of them had to be appointed. i think to be some systemic consequences of that, my because for serious concern. you know, the framers said that judges are subject to their confirmation by the senate, and the senate is a political body. and it acts in a political way, that the dynamic, the discipline, the challenge is to

follow the process and pursue that process in a way that respects the integrity and decency of the judicial candidate so that it is not a process that discourages eminent practitioners from seeking to be confirmed to the federal bench. and that's in the senate and to some larger extent to the congress to decide. it's not for us to dictate. we do have concerns, about the delays in the process. if you're a private practitioner, especially in a small practice and you waiting for confirmation, can you take this case, can you begin consulting with this client win nomination is pending, it can be very difficult.

but i think it is for the congress and senate to determine how this process should be followed in a principled way so that they can judge the temperament and the qualifications of the prospective judge. without subconsciously asking how would this judge rule on issue a or issue be. i think that's improper. what you must ask for is the judge's independence and commitment to the law, open mind, and the willingness to listen. >> it is a big topic, and it's a topic that justice kennedy and i and justice o'connor and justice souter have spoken quite a bit a lot, and the staff is welcome to go online and find some of the 92 speeches i have probably given on this. over all there is no perfect system there, but speeds are you

willing to tweet about it? >> i would if i would permit myself to respond to tweet. but i figure that way -- so there's quite a lot on -- major areas of concern are the campaign contributions combined with the state election system. that's one of the areas. the federal system are the elected official and asserted by the elected officials and i remind people of that when i'm asked this kind of question. confirmation, i said i was not the confirming person but i was the confirmed person. i was not a nominee person. i was a nominated person. and to ask me is like asking for the recipe for chicken allah came from the point of view from the chicken.

[laughter] >> i'll think about that. of course it used to be, congressman, in my hometown, in california, if a straight trial judge was challenged, if that judge was a good judge, the bar would come to his or her defense. now have plaintiffs bars, defensive bars. if x. runs against why and excess why have to answer that. a study shows that y must answer that you know what that means. money. and that's the process. i think elections were part of the jacksonian democracy in 1840 for judges. judges have tremendous power in our society, and so has to be

some public political control at some point. i think it is visionary to think that we can't eliminate elections. the object is to use elections to educate the electorate on what the requisite qualifications should be for a judge. this is a great chance to educate the public as to what judges do and what are the qualifications for a judge who brings dignity to the bench. and we can use elections, intelligent commentary from the press and from civic groups as to what a campaign ought to do, whether a campaign is dignified or not. and i think we have to pay much more attention. democracy is pretty new in historical terms, especially when we consider democracy with the mass media. we're not quite sure yet what

the ballots ought to be, but it's urgent for us to have the public discourse that is more civil, that is more rational, is more moderate, more productive, that is more principled. and i think judicial elections might be a good way to start. i haven't seen any yet that i can hold up as a model for your. start madam chair, if i might i have one additional thought your. one of the tensions that always exist in this town is between the three branches of government, and this has been discussed here already today. they often don't around phrases active discourse or activist judges, and i know that's probably not a phrase that is thrown around the supreme court. asked that tension continues and i'm sure it always will in this country, between what congress believes its intent is are some believe congress is intent is

and what the court determines what the real result, what sort of resources do you rely on to define congressional intent, and what could congress do, particularly congressmen and women who feel the supreme court is taking positions that are contrary to maybe the intent of congress to make the intent more clear to do their part to do everything they can to make sure that the laws are written to the specificity or the congressional record is such that it makes clear that position from the legislative branch speak with this is a question of considerable academic and philosophic difficulty. it's current, it's topical but it's also been going on for about 100 years. of course it's the obligation of the congress to tell the courts what it means and what it intends. sometimes, when i was in private

practice i found that sometimes in negotiations of a contract you wanted to leave some things a little murky, and most of us think that precision in drafting means that you have absolute specificity. but sometimes you leave things a little murky. i think often the congress which cannot go back to revisit its legislation to clarify it is too murky just because of the dynamics of the political process. that's the way the bill gets out. but you do that at the risk to some court will not understand what your intent is, or rule misinterpreted. >> one bit of advice, the are you within the court, i probably more than many members of the court, i look at the language, i

look at the history. i look at the tradition. i look at the president. i will try to figure out what the purpose of this is. the word cost is in the statute that allows parents of the children, the child who has now, they have one suit and you got that child a better education because he is a child. doesn't cover your cough, does that include expertise or not? read the word costs. it doesn't tell you. so i will look at purpose. and, therefore, i want to read the report and i will want to read the debate and want to read what people have in mind. not everyone wants to do that. i found it's terribly important to the courts to bring their decision and statewide with the purpose of those who passed the bill in congress. however, is there anything we can do, it's hard to resist that question. and since i've worked in congress for a while, if i'd once you think you would really

do, is don't circumvent your own process. when i worked on the staff, i mean, we spent a lot of time over at senate -- teddy kennedy's showing the draft of everybody interested so we can get advice, and trying over time to get the words to mean what you want it to mean that at. that's a time-consuming process. when the word in the bill are unclear, i sort of shutter but i think it may not be quite as clear, and it's going to be harder for me than if the process had been going to end had been hearings and debate and discussion just like a 12th grade civics book says that's what happened in congress, and the more that is the easier our job is. >> thank you. madam chair, i don't back. >> thank you very much, mr. yoder. i really do want to thank you all very much not on for your service but for taking so much

time out of your very busy schedules to be here today. i never thought that we would ask a supreme court justice about their tweeting. but nontheless, shows how times have changed. pardon me? [inaudible] >> did you? thank you. you have to say is that you all justice breyer. [inaudible] >> well then, i'm sure that all the people who would love to follow justice breyer will be asking him today based on your comment, mr. serrano. but anyway, sosa, you all performed a very, very important function for this government and for our country. and for that i'm very grateful. thank you. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] .. tionzings [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we're live on capitol hill this morning on the rayburn house office building. the house natural resources committee on national parks, forests, and public lands today look at how environmental laws impact border security. utah republican rob bishop introducing regulation to waive some environmental rules for u.s. patrol when operating on u.s. p lands. the impact of more border control vehicles, observations towers, roads, and fences on national parks and wilderness areas. we understand that the hearing is going to be delayed just a little bit. the house is this morning voting on the federal budget, and so those votes are underway right now. it started 10 minutes ago, went we expect another 5 minutes or so before this hearing gets underway, but when it begins, we'll bring you live coverage

here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> again, a little bit of a delay in this hearing by the house natural resources committee on national parks, forests, and public lands looking at how environmental laws impact border security. should start up in a little as

house members are voting on the federal budget. we spoke with a reporter covering the budget debate on capitol hill. he joined us on "washington journal." >> host: thank you for being with us. let's talk about the continuing resolution passed yesterday. new scorings on the compromise came out yesterday. what did we learn how about how much affected this spending cut compromise will have on federal spending? on the phone: it would be much smaller for this year in the remainder of this year. only maybe just like 1% of what they thought they were getting, but you also have to look long term, and over the long term, i believe cbo does say it achieves some significant savings, and that would snowball would be

over the years. >> host: the republican conference didn't hold together. 59, and in fact, i read it would be 60 if they were on the floor to vote. what does that mean going forward on the next round with the debt limit and the future budget debates? >> caller: could go a couple ways. one way to look at it is he needed to rely on democrats to get that bill passed yesterday, and so he might have to keep that in mind as he goes into negotiations on the debt limit and bigger budget deal. on the other hand, most speakers do want to keep control and have the support of their membership and it might cause him to work harder in future bills to gain the support of his entire conference so that he doesn't lose that many or any members.

>> host: with that in mind, give us a preview of the vote today on the so-called ryan budget. on the phone: there's five different -- c-span: five different plans, and he could lose a few votes. some republicans, a few announced they probably are not going to support it. i think the expectation is that he won't lose the 589 near that he lost yesterday. he could lose a few, but generally, this is a -- in some ways an easier vote for members. there's not a government shutdown on the line. it could be that just about all democrats vote against it, and all republicans vote for it. >> house members are beginning the day with the debate and votes on several al tern gnat budget proposals. you can see that live on c-span. we are live again in the rayburn

house office building for the impact of environmental laws on border security. we expect this to get underway in just a moment. this is live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> again, waiting for the hearing by the national resources subcommittee on national parks, forests, and public lands. today, they are looking at how environmental laws are impacting border security. panels cochairs are utah republican rob bishop and jason chaffetz of utah. we are beginning the waiting of this hearing to get underway. members returning from votes in the house on the federal budget. >> we are waiting for a couple members including representative ray. i understand they are on their way, so we will start this momentarily, so i'll just hang happily. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> couple moments ago you may or may not have heard congress bishop mention they are in o holding pattern because they are awaiting the arrival of congressman rayas who is on the government reform committee. this is a joint hearing. we expect this to get underway as soon as the congressman appears. again, this is a hearing of the natural resources committee on national parks, forests, and public lands. they are examining how environmental laws impact border

security. at issue, is the impact of more border patrol vehicles, towers, roads, and fences on national parks and wilderness areas. we'll bringing you live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it appears it'll be a few more moments. we'll bay away for a few moments going to washington journal where the discussion was on defense cuts in the federal budget. >> host: before our question with you about what you think the appropriate size of the military is and how much money the country should spend on defense, i want to get an update on the budget decisions from congressman richardson of the congressional correspondence. richard, good morning, thank you for being with us. >> caller: thank you. >> host: let's talk about the continuing res lyings passed yesterday because now

calculations about the compromise came out from the congressional budget office yesterday. what did we learn about how much affect this $38 billion compromise has on federal spending? >> caller: well, the estimate showed that they would actually be -- if you look at it one way, they would be much smaller for this year in the remainder of this year. only maybe just like 1% of what they thought they were getting. >> we'll leave this sellment and return now to the rayburn house office building. it looks like the subcommittee is getting underway in their discussion on how environmental laws are impacting border security. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> with that, i'm going to call this hearing to order. i note the presence of the quorum which is law bar for us here today. we are meeting today to hear testimony on how environmental

laws and regulations and keyboarder operations can harm the border land environment. under the rules. the opening statements are limited to the chairman and ranking members whenever they show up. we can hear from our witnesses more quickly, however, i ask unanimous consent to include any other member's opening statement in the record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business days. hearing no objection, that's so ordered. i ask mr. reyes statement be the first witness of the day if he is here when we reach that time, otherwise, when he gets here, we'll interrupt you. without objection, i bang the gavel. the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pierce join us and introduce the witness and participate in the hearing. once again, without objection, so ordered. i'll make my opening statement after my colleagues had a chance to speak, so i'll now recognize

the chairman of the subcommittee on national security, homeland defense, and operations mr. mr. khaffetz. >> thank you. we are looking at how environmental laws affect our borders. we'll examining the extent to which restrictions placed on agents are harming the environment. since december of 2006, the drug cartel related violence in mexico continues to raise in intensity. in mexico, 3,000 people killed in 2007. that number increased to almost 7,000 in the year 2008. more than 9500 people killed in 2009, and by 2010, that number is now over 15,000. according to reports, most of the crimes occurred in or within a short distance of the united states border towns, and americans suffered. three u.s. law enforcement

officers were injured or lost their lives in recent months. two immigration agencies were both shot in the line of duty. one later died from his injuries. in december 2010 u.s. border pa trail brian terry was fatally shot preventing criminal activity along the border. having reviewed the photos, they are so graphic and so disturbing, i worry about sharing them in this format here. this steep an continuing increase in violence raises concern for the public and members on both sides of the aisle. department of the homeland security is responsible for securing the u.s. border and in response to illegal activity at the southwest border including illegal activities occurring on federal lands. the department of homeland security has in the last two years increased the amount of

agents and resources to prevent smuggling, kidnapping, and illegal imgrace. despite the increase of federal resources, richard, director of homeland security issues the gao, government of accountability offices, identified gaping holes in the straity. there's only 129 miles of the roughly 1954 mile long southwest border where the border patrol can "detour, apprehend illegal entries." only 129 of the nearly 2,000 miles are adequately secured. this is unacceptable, and the federal government should be ashamed. with the federal government spending millions of dollars on strategy, let's find a better solution. because the department of homeland security's inain't to secure the border and control

access to federal lands. in 2006, department of interior and agriculture enter into a understanding meme renne dumb. it also sought to ensure the concerns about protecting the environment would be addressed. the mou showed the need for cooperation and responses of federal land managers to request by the border control. the parties greed to cooperate and do so if an expedited manner. however, a recent report indicated that "cooperation has not always occurred." between the department of home lant security, interior, and usda. they will be testifying today all in the same panel. border control agents part of the 16 stations told the gao that "when they attempt to obtain a permit or get on portions of land, delay

restrictions result from complying with land management laws. i fully support the moment pl uses of public lands, but we must listen to the border patrol agents putting their lives on the line every day. the delays results from environmental laws have saidlessens agent's ain't to detect undocumented aliens. again, this is totally unacceptable. unsecure border is a national security threat. the sooner we realize the fact and act accordingly, the safer we'll be. i look forward to hearing from the wngses. i appreciate your time and effort. many traveled from great distances. we appreciate you being here today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. representative i see on the floor, i know he's here with us in spirit. we'll recognize to give any opening statement he'd wish. we have the ranking member,

whatever your title is now here. we appreciate you for yoining us. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank the witnesses testifying today. the question posed by today's hearing is whether the environment laws prevent the border patrol from safely securing our border. the unanimous answer in written testimony from the border patrol, department of interior, agriculture, and accountability office says no. as made clear in the testimony, the environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. let's not create a false choice where none exists. of course, this places restrictions on the border patrol's operations in sensitive areas, but according to the bulk of testimony received today, those restrictions imposed a relatively low burden successfully managed through interagency cooperation. this is not to say there's serious incursions on the border. we know that drug smugglers use

federal land to perpetrate their illegal activities. nonetheless, while the lands are used to commit illicit activity, others are home to environmental roarses, heritage sites, and endangered species. the border patrol believes they can achieve the border security mission and be responsible steward of the environment at the same time. the department of the interior and department of agriculture agree and the general accountability office that studied the issue extensively concurs. this committee is no strainer to the challenges posed with the on going violence in mexico. they held hearings examining the secure threatings posed by drug cartels in mexico and federal strategies to confront the challenges. 30,000 victims in mexico were killed. there are many real challenges underminding our mission to secure the borders, but almost

by all accounts today environmental restrictions are not one of them. mr. chairman, i look forward to working with you to identify the challenges that confront the border security. thank you. >> thank you for your opening statements. i'm prepared to give mine at this particular time. i'm glad that we are all here on this particular process, and especially that we will be joined by a couple of people. representative will be here lately -- or soon. representative giffords who we pray for a speedily recovery and others who represent the areas of most impact and i appreciate their view as why they tell their constituents why they have a problem that basically has solutions to be found here in washington if we wished. the issue is illegal entry into this country, and i think the bottom line has to be that it is unacceptable, even one is

unacceptable, but what is happening today is unacceptable. homeland security, the forest service and department of interior all have a responsibility in here, and the bottom line what you're doing is not working. the status quo is unacceptable. if things are getting better and the gao report said in some areas that is it is getting better, positive, but it's not good enough. it's just not people coming across the border looking for a better life. concern of us are the drug cartels destroying the lives of our kids with illegal drugs, prostitution rings, human traffickers, people who are assaulted and raped and murdered on american land, and that is unacceptable. what is worse? american citizens living in this area are threatened and killed, and that is simply unacceptable. can i have map two up there? that shows -- i need map two. that's it. it shows the regions coming here from the last bit of data.

some are doing well. i think the people apprehended in maine is 56 showing the canadians are not coming here to take our hockey jobs. it's a half million people apprehended. that's the one we caught, not who came in. looking at the numbers, our quarter of a million of all of those went through the tucson sector itself. 52% of those coming in the country come through that one sector. no wonder you can understand why arizona reacted the way they did in the past legislation because that's 1,000 people a day apprehended through their sector alone. there's yuma in there at the same time. the question has to be why is that the access of choice for those coming in here? map one. this is the border land by definition that is 100 miles above the border. everything red on the map is owned by the federal

government. in places where we have success, there's knot a lot of red. in the places where the problem exists, it is red. gao said 97% of apprehensions are on federal lands. when we built the fence, 36 laws waived in order to build the fence. one makes the assumption that those 36 may indeed have a reason in the problem that border patrol has in securing the borders right now. department of interior -- i'm sorry, your response so far has been number eight which is to set up a sign telling americans not to go on american property. now, the outrage of these signs was secure. it was major, and you pulled them down which was right, but the attitude has not changed a sovereign country has to control its sovereign lands, and we're not doing that. it's unacceptable. it's not safe for americans to go into america, and that's unacceptable. the representative from homeland

security tells us things are fine. we are getting along, and we'll improving. i don't buy it because the logical assumption of that testimony means border patrol is incompetent to do their job, and i don't believe that for one second. i believe the border patrol is competent, but there's frustrations with the department of interior and forest service, and if i can have number four i believe -- that prohibits that. these are the old barriers we used to have along the border. they've been removed with belter barriers, and now one land manager under the director of department of interior used these borders not to secure it, but preventing the border patrol fromñi entering certain areas. that's unacceptable. they can do their job if allowed to. there's a wilderness bill for new mexico and recognized in the bill there should be a five mile strip on the border where the border patrol has total access.

the idea is there, but five miles doesn't cut it. the report that came do us, a lot of people took a sentence out of context saying 22 of the 26 stations said things are fine. however, if you read the entire report, down to page 32 you see what they said was in other words no portions of these stations jurisdiction have had their border security status such as control, managed, or monitored downgraded as a result of land management laws. to me, that's not the same thing especially if you look at the res of the record seeing 17 of the 26 stations said they are delays and poreses of the -- portions of the programs were delayed. . .

>> in a place in arizona took six months to get permission to improve roads border patrol made on three or of man's -- bureau of management plan. eight months to allow input for truck transportation to underground sensors that didn't take place. i find interesting in some places it simply never happen. border agent in charge told us maintenance was made for five roads and to serve as a system sites within the station of operation but they did not receive permission.

with thousands of maintain roads the agents could not conduct routine patrols are reach the site for mobile service systems even in the area of hide illegal traffic. in other anywhere there are fruit roads the agents had one additional road on an east-west corridor could close the border to combat the 8000 miles of trails that and document workers have produced in this particular system. in another area they uproot or helicopter landings because of its remoteness. unfortunate everything was delayed until 2011. contrasting two previous examples when border patrol requested additional access, wilderness area and management land manager determine the additional border patrol access would not improve the protection of the resources. so what happened is they put the surveillance on land that is owned by the state of arizona, not by the federal government and is to create a three-mile hole in the surveillance for

undocumented workers. the land manager request the board of a troll to find a different location for the tower because the wilderness act restrictions and he explained the border patrol did not demonstrate to him the proposed tower was critical. he made a final decision, not the experts on the border patrol area. i'm sorry, the witnesses will tell you the memo is working. no, it's not. i'm glad you're becoming more chummy with the memo of understanding that the memo of understanding is not the same thing as border security. the memo of understanding is not a solution. it is a process in the process, the numbers on the first light is simply not working. the results of that memo are unacceptable. the memo has fielded it was designed to fail and prohibit the border patrol from simply and actually doing their job. with the memo does is confirm what people on the ground have contended and what washington has denied. what we have to do is regain control of our lands from the drug cartel. national security as a number issue. it's national security stupid. if the fence needed 36 waivers,

the border patrol needs the same. border patrol should not be stopped anything they try to do. the environment is being trashed by a illegal entry. it is not national security that is threatening our environment, it is the lack of national security. the department of interior must do better priorities so human life takes a higher priority over what they're looking right now with the blind they have. environmental laws and border security are in conflict. you hear a lot of spin today from the next panel of witnesses. one might hope if i can phrase once again, when you quit spending it will be taking towards the front. what is happening right now is not. acceptable, and it has to change. i appreciate your patience in that. once again, i want to thank you. we have previously recognized mister reyes who will be here. we have approved your presence here. we noted she will be the first speaker for us.

your timing is impeccable. you cannot just the right time to give your statement. we appreciate the service and the history you bring to us as one of those border patrol workers who did such a great job where you are allowed to do a great job. you are recognize reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. chairman as well, and ranking member tierney, and i know ranking member is probably on his way. i guess i'm speaking on the floor. but thank you for giving me an opportunity to be here to lend my comments to very important work that you're two respective committees are doing. i guess one of the first point i want to make, and underscore, is oftentimes we that both represent border districts and those that are elected to leadership positions in the border area get frustrated

because decisions made here, particularly at the federal level often impact their communities, and the relationship between communities and the customs and border protection and other law enforcement agencies that are very important work to do to secure the nation, so i want to tell you how much i appreciate the opportunity not just to be here this morning, but i caution was part of a field hearing that you did in brownsville, texas, where the community got a chance both to testify and also to absorb a hearing in process. just last week the committee on homeland security on the senate side, senator lieberman's committee, asked my county judge

to come up and give testimony. so she was a. no, and, in fact, made a number of points that i want to reinforce here this morning. first of all, i represent the safest city in the united states of over 500,000 people or more. it's interesting to note that five of our border cities, to include the two largest one, el paso and san diego, and mcallen, laredo and tucson, are, in fact, on the top 10 list of safest city in the country. the reason i mention that is because oftentimes the rhetoric does not match what we are experiencing, those of us that live on the border. the border is not a lawless region. the border is not an area that is out of control.

i can't say enough about the work that the border patrol is doing. i can't say enough about the cooperation that exists to make sure that border communities are secure. feel secure, and our job is to make sure that the facts come out. so when we talk about the border region, i would strongly recommend that you do a series of hearings, in particular made in those cities that are among the safest cities in the country. i speak from a perspective of having spent 26 and a half years working the border, working my way up from an agent, working five years in the del rio area, del rio sector, and then team chief into other areas, south texas and el paso where i was born and raised.

so, i always want to make sure that as the only member of congress, with that background, that i get an opportunity to at least provide what i feel is very important, and that is accurate information about what's going on. and i don't expect people to take my word for it. i welcome and, in fact, we've had a number of hearings both in el paso and other areas that i had joined both this committee and other committees that have that responsibility, to take testimony, but most importantly to actually go out there and see the work that's being done by our border patrol agents. see the work that is being done in concert with other agencies, both federal, state and local, which is very important, the cooperation that exists. i wanted to give one example of how that cooperation is important by citing a recent

issue that existed in my community. and that was -- there is one last section of fencing that needs to take place right near our downtown area in el paso. in that area is also the water source that's literally 12 minutes away from the water treatment plant, that when it was initially proposed defense that area, would have put that water source south of the fencing. so thanks to the cooperation of the customs and border protection, consulting with the community, we came up with a compromise that we're going to close off that canal so that people that are intending on may be taking some kind of a

terrorist act against the united states don't have access to that water system. so we will close it off. the border patrol will get their offense, and the fans will also protect some infrastructure that the city was concerned about. that is critical in controlling the water runoff during storms. those are the kinds of cooperative and consultation efforts that make sense in our communities. and i guess today i would ask that the decisions that are recommended from this, from this committee be done with that spirit in mind, that we oftentimes want to make decisions, for instance, putting up a very expensive fence in areas they really don't need it come in areas where we can

monitor it electronically, where agents have sufficient time to respond once those intrusions are known. they are the experts. i retired from the border patrol over 15 years ago, but i still am very much interested, keep in contact, and am proud to say that they are not just my former colleagues, but my friends. and we need to do everything we can to support them, both because it's america's first line of defense, but most importantly because the border patrol works on the theory that it's always better to consult with the local community because they are part of that community, so that both priorities are reached, both the enforcement priority and the committee priority as i just spoke about

with the example i gave you. the last point i want to make is that when i retired we had a little over 5000 agents in the whole border patrol. we've done a very good job of increasing the size of the border patrol. today there's over 20,000 agents. there's one area that i'm concerned about that we haven't focused on, and i hope we get a chance to do that. and that's at the ports of entry. today we are seeing alarming statistics of the amounts of narcotics that are being intercepted at those ports of entry. and across the nation those ports of entry are carrying on a normal average about 831-38% vacancy ratio in their ranks. that means we need different things, including the fact that it creates a vulnerable environment for our country, but

it also means long waiting lines for people wanting to cross the border. and obviously it means that they saw the statistics we are seeing that more narcotics are coming through those ports of entry because that workforce is overwhelmed. so i hope we get a chance to have hearings on increasing the size of officers at those ports of entry. i know that if you ask border patrol here this morning, they can tell you the same thing and verify the fact that it doesn't make sense to have control in between the ports of entry and not at those ports of entry that account for millions of entries every single day, from new mexico and the united states, and also from canada into the united states. so, with that, thank you for giving me an opportunity to

testify before you this morning. and i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. we will be respectful of your time. does anyone have questions for the gentleman from texas? representative chaffetz, go ahead. >> thanks for being here, and i know you care as much about this issue as anybody. from your perspective, border patrol agents putting their lives on the line, they're going into inhospitable areas, people that they don't know, that they're trying to apprehend. concern is the rural area, particularly where we have some environmental laws that prohibit the use of vehicles and other types of things. can you really look somebody in the eye and see if you do this on foot, you'll be equally as secure and safe and as effective as you would as if you were in a vehicle? that is my concern is, part of

the testimony that we are about to hear, the written testimony that tim thorsen cemetery zip code on any federal land at any time you may patrol on foot or on horseback. i can imagine looking at some border patrol agent in the eye and say, i'm sorry, you can't use the vehicle here. you'd have to go out on foot. is that really what we should be telling our border patrol agents? >> not so much of that but i will tell you my experience has always been -- border patrol as a hardy bunch. they love patrol it on horseback, and there are a number of reasons for that. not only does it provide quick access in very rough terrain, but it also allows them to have a higher perspective of whatever is ahead of them.

and they can ride up on groups of people much faster and much safer. if you rely on speed than a vehicle? >> than a vehicle. well, remember, what we're talking about are the areas that you just mentioned are very rough terrain, very uneven terrain. yes, we have things like -- >> some of it is -- some of it, some of it, it's not all mountains. >> no, no, it's not. but i guess from my perspective, from my experience it doesn't make sense to give the tools to the border patrol that they need, and in some of these areas what they want are, the ability to patrol on horseback -- >> but i guess the current question is who should make that

decision? shouldn't that be the decision of the border patrol to say this is how we are going to secure our folks? >> the law says that the border patrol has the right of access anywhere, unrestricted anywhere within 25 miles of an international border. they have that authority, but -- >> i wish that were true. my understanding is that is not true. my understanding is that is on private property but not on public land to the issue here is a national force is one of the big issues. they can't do that. >> and i know the area. >> you have to get permission from somebody who doesn't have the best permission online. they have to go as some with you to risk their lives on this public property. >> i've been there. i've seen that area. i've talked with the chiefs that have been in charge of those areas. they don't have a problem of

access because, at least the ones i've talked to, because they do patrol that area. in fact, they have the same concerns that chairman bishop articulated, and that is from an environmental perspective, the water jugs, plastic bags and all of that stuff that undocumented people leave, are an issue for them. but access and the ability to patrol, and i'm not speaking for them. they will be testifying, but i am telling you both from i expect that from talking to the chiefs in those areas, they don't -- at least they have not told me that they have been denied access to that area spent i want to conclude within might scope of done. i guess the point i'm trying to drive home his the border patrol should be making those types of decisions whether or not they use a horse or foot or vehicle.

and that's my driving point. would you disagree or agree? >> i would not disagree although don't discount the fact that the chiefs that are in charge of those areas have the best interest of officer safety in mind, first and foremost. but they also -- you know, one of the things that i have learned through my experience is no one is more attuned, and i go back to saying the border patrol is a hardy bunch, no one is more passion no one is more akin to the surroundings, to respecting nature and those kinds of things. that's why mention to you one of the biggest complaints that i have heard is about the refuse that is left behind by undocumented people. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. reyes, thank you for joining us here this morning. i do respect the fact that you have i think moore expressed certainty that any member of congress at your job on the

border patrol, budget also have been very focused on this area, continue because of your district to be in touch with people which strikes me, we sort of impose on you some of the questions. outside of the future of experience but we still want to tell you what works on that. what i'm hearing from you is that basically when is an environment of our regulars you might touch on a conflict with the security issue that's been your expense that the agencies involved have been able to work it out but a reasonably? >> that's correct. >> my understanding, the understand between different agencies is that when there's an area of exigency whether hot pursuit or some other security issue, the border patrol ashley does have the ability to use motorized vehicles, is that right? >> that's right. nowhere on the border under emergency situations is the border patrol precluded from doing what ever it needs to do. >> and there was a question of

moment ago about who makes the decision. we have lost in this country and i suspect those prevail, mri, at least in terms -- >> that's right spent and agencies tried to intimate those lost? >> troop. >> and the memoranda is a way to understand what appears in those lost? >> correct. >> the agencies have been able to effectively under the memorandum of agreement at the other cooperative means resolve any issues of problems for the most part that come up under that? >> and that's been my experience, yes. >> the border patrolman at this led by motorized vehicle or otherwise exigent or emergency situations come and that seems to cover, when it comes up to a final decision, the border patrol decides exigency or emergency they need to use a vehicle and biggio, has that been your experience. >> yes, it has. you got to remember that there are times when perhaps you've got an airplane crash, you've got some other kind of experience an agent a shot, the

border patrol chiefs are not, are not going to allow anything to interfere with being able to get in there and do whatever needs to be done to both secure the area, and most importantly, take care of whatever officer is injured. >> it appears our laws don't interfere with either. >> they do not. >> hasn't been your experience that there are other factors involved and sometimes causing difficulty for border patrol agent or others to get control over a particular area? in geography of an area, either sometimes more of an impediment? >> well, sure. and that's what again, the chief in the sector knows that area best. even constant communication with both the agent in charge of

whatever area is in the station that you're describing, and decisions are made both in terms of being able to secure the area and how they would respond, and with what they would respond. i mean, that's the chiefs response ability to make sure that in case of a national emergency or an emergency affecting officer safety, or the safety of maybe a rancher or maybe an undocumented person whose life is in jeopardy, they will make whatever decisions needs to be made, and have that access without any problem. >> how many years, mr. reyes, were you a member of the border patrol? >> twenty-six and a half step to a six and half years as a border agent, chief, 15 years in congress representing an area involved in that. and your conversation with very dashed at various agencies and employees along the.

how many incidences are you aware of where an environmental law or another law was an insurmountable impediment to the border patrol doing its work? >> i can't think of any. in fact i will tell you border patrol agents worked very closely in texas, and their job and their responsibility to make sure that cattle does not come over from mexico because of the kind of disease that would have. so border patrol works very closely. i work with them when i was an agent. we worked very closely with the parks and wildlife people. on occasion dps, department of public safety, and park rangers in general in the areas that they have a presence. so when you're wearing a badge,

you have that responsibility, you want to make sure that, to the extent possible, that you both knowledge of who was there and an understanding that they are going to come to your assistance and you are going to go to their assistance. because of both the inside and hostility of the area, or perhaps either a drug smuggler, alien smuggler or others, that might not distinguish, not know the difference between a border patrol agent, a park ranger, and others. >> thank you for coming this morning and sharing your extensive experience from a ranger perspective. >> my good friend from michigan, you have any questions for mr. reyes? >> just a statement. i'm from michigan, and we border on canada, so we had to sometimes look at our northern border also. and sometimes those who'd do,

from plane by europe, one person the cop trying in a plane to detroit, but by water. i've been impressed by cooperation between the border patrol in the forest service service and our coast guard. three very important. and i think we have to encourage that cooperation. and sometimes loss have to catch up with changed circumstances. and if there is a need for change in laws can't hearings like this might help. i'm not sure there is a need if there's already good cooperation, but i do appreciate your service, your district, to your stake him and his congress. thank you very much. >> and i would also add the royal canadian mounted police, border patrol has outstanding and outstanding working relation and history with them as well. because we come at least it's

been, it's been a history that most of the resources have been on the southern border with mexico because that's where the pressure is. so we have less officers, and they depend on relationships with local law enforcement like the rcmp up there. >> one good border patrol person, diana, help apprehend automate who is up to no good at all. she was training and her perception was able to stop the. >> thank you, dale. appreciate it very much. the chairman is here. i recognize him and then recognize represented pierce of new mexico. >> i'll be quick. had you been sworn in? i've got a lot of questions for you. >> i think everything -- every time you testified before congress you are sworn in. >> we have always sworn at him.

>> congressman, thank you for being here and thank you so much for bringing us an inside view of outside agency. so that's the only reason i showed up here was i said wait a second, this is one of my best friends in congress and somebody i rely on for the kind of advice you just a. so thank you. that's all i wanted to say spent and thank you, mr. chairman, because as i said publicly on occasions, many times while we may differ in our politics, i think we all want to do what's best for our national security in the protection and how we get there really is i think the important part, for many different reasons. these guys are the experts. i think god that i have that background because i really enjoyed my 26 and a half years in the border patrol. i don't think there's a fire law enforcement group in the world

than the border patrol. but as you can expect, i'm probably a little biased. >> but what we know about you is you used to be somebody. >> yes, thank you. >> thank you spent thank you for being here this morning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you must be something special but he's never said anything that next to me. thanks a lot. >> remember, he was a member of my committee when i was chairman of the intelligence committee and we worked on many different issues. one of the beast are you telling me you have photos or something? >> no. not that i'm aware of. what did work on some really tough stuff that will never, people will never know publicly. but again, it's about the national security of our country. >> mr. pearse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the opportunity to be here on this committee. and thank my neighbor for his decades of service both in the

border patrol and here in congress. more, and any question. i'm hearing what you're saying that el paso is the safest city in the u.s., less than 50 miles, i mean el paso bumps up against the towns in my district, and 50 miles from downtown el paso they literally bar their windows and doors and they don't feel like they are in the safest place in the world. in fact, just about two weeks ago in anti-gay declared their streets to be completely unsafe -- and anthony they declared their streets to be completely unsafe. it's a contrast from the safest city to just 15 miles away. wasn't there a major highway that was shut down in el paso last year because of the unfair? was that the year before? >> no. anthony is not on the border. >> i was in anthony.

son part is the same. they feel they express tremendous fear for the safety. >> if you at least, we have to separate criminal activity by non-illegal aliens that are coming through the area. and the streets were declared on state because of gang activity, the warring gangs there which occurs throughout anywhere in this country. but the border highway which literally runs right along the rio grande river is the road that you are referring to. and yes, there was a gunfight that occurred which may be the most violent city, sort of the most violent city in the americas but made one of the most violent cities in the world because of the friction among

the cartels. but there were bullets, the concern by the police department was that a stray bullet might hit a passing car. it's a consequence of the location of that highway. >> if i can reclaim my time. i would point out that the gang signs are from mexico, central america have appeared on signs under barnes and the second digit of new mexico, and it alarms people. and we have a rancher that was killed on his ranch. in the 26 and half years that you served, what wilderness areas did you actually, were in your jurisdiction, under your command, which wilderness areas -- the formal designation of wilderness? >> as an agent i worked, what is

known as the amistad lake area. >> is that wilderness, designated wilderness the? >> sections are. in fact, some of the, because of the excavations of some of the caves with hieroglyphics and all of that, they have been put under the jurisdiction of i believe the department of the interior. it's an area -- armistead lake as you know, like falcon lake, is right on the border, half of it is in mexico and half of it is in the united states. we have the responsibility for the -- >> i'm about to run out of time but i which is absurd that mr. bingaman was submitted a bill faster and you before to make wilderness on the area, and in contrast to your assertion that we have 25 miles access in every wilderness area on any

place from the border, he cocks we had at the count my's designate that we could get wheeled vehicles into a five-mile stretch. that was a compromise that initially was not. and wilderness, the wilderness along time ago, an airplane crashed from my hometown. they had to back back the bodies out. in other words, wilderness is a very restrictive designation. with the testimony that if we created the wilderness along the rio grande that they would not be able to ask to get bulldozers and to replace the earth and dams that washed out in the flood about three years ago, and then we would be subject to flooding for the rest of the time. so a wilderness area, i've got the gila wilderness in my district and i went to the organ pipe national monument and i saw the signs and we had a formal briefing that half of that was completely off limits to american tourists because of the

illegal activity across the border. and if our agents were able to access that come it doesn't seem like that would be off limits to american tourist because it was so dangerous. many places in new mexico, only barbed wire fence is there on the border. again, i yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, if i could respond. the international -- >> fifteen seconds spent the international boundary and water commission has the authority to do the kind of work that irrespective of wilderness designations that mr. pierce was talking about in terms of levees and dams and all that. i think if you check that out, it will be clear who has the jurisdiction. >> mr. reyes, i just want to give benediction to your presentation here today by thanking you here today. the written statement that you gave, i asked agree with point after paint -- point. one of the gao report said the

border patrol and there would put a strategy on high priority on border enforcement in urban and other areas but it does work. border patrol can do their job when you are allowed to. but it has had the process of diverting large concentrations of illegal traffic to the federal lands and other remote areas where you're talking. i agree with you is what the agent should be able to respond as best they can. i agree are some areas that whereby defending is not legitimate option for a. but indeed access by the border patrol is. and sometimes they do use resources. although secretary napolitano did say it may be inadvisable for officers of safety to a way for the arrival of a horse for the purpose is to apprehend somebody. that sometimes is a difficult and also we will remember that all those horses are fed. we feed pellets because you can't have perfect kind of force. i also agree with you on to the point, that global consultation should be the best basis of

making those kinds of decision. i agree with what you said on the accident or emergency circumstances, although i will take the m.o.u. does have a definition of what those are and they have not always been maintained by the land manager. there have been times land managers have told border patrol different than what the m.o.u. is supposed and that will come out in her testimony there. the last one is i agree with a good idea you had on beefing up our port of interest. >> thanks. >> you said we should have more officers, i think you should have a bigger, which means i. mr. chaffetz don't know what he's talking about our portly officers at the port of entry, in which case i took offense to that because he's talking right about me. [laughter] i appreciate you being here. thank you for your testimony. thank you for being a part of this, and we thank you for the and we will let you go back and do real work that. >> thank you so much and i look forward to working with you and your respective committees on this very important issues for our country. that you very much.

>> great. we now have the next panel that will be joining us, but i understand the practice of the oversight and government reform is for the witnesses to be sworn in so i would like represented chaffetz -- [inaudible] >> the next panel will come up very, very slowly. so the panel as it gets set up for you, so if you want to come up slowly, don't stand up yet. that's too fast. it's going to be a couple of seconds before we can get things situated up your. we will have though ronald vitiello, and you can correct pronunciation of that, deputy chief of u.s. customs and border patrol, campos, deputy assistant secretary of law enforcement security of the emergency management from the department of interior, j. jensen, deputy undersecretary for natural

resources and viacom department of agriculture, i didn't message was because they are just good old danish names. i can handle that. but in one second we would ask you, and i think i will turn the chair over to representative chaffetz to take care of this portion. >> it is the practice of the oversight committee that all witnesses would be sworn in. so those three witnesses, as well as the backup witnesses to rise and raise your right hand, please. [witnesses were sworn in] >> thank you. you may be seated. and let the record reflect that all participants answered in the affirmative. thank you. it is our hope at this time that before the next vote occurs that we can have the testimony of the

individuals who are there. i do not coming to care which order you go? then let's take you from left to right. we will start with homeland security, go to interior and then finish up with the agricultural department. thank you for being here. as you should know, you've been here long enough to know this. everything, you written has what is in the record, anything else you want to add we can put in the record as well. the timer is in front of you. when the yellow light comes on europe one minute left. we will try to close as close to that red light as is possible. >> chairman bishop, chairman chavez, ranking members and distinguish them us of the subcommittee is my privilege and honor to appear before you today to discuss u.s. customs and border protection's efforts to concerning illegal activities on federal lands i'm ronald vitiello, the border agent. i begin my credit law enforcement in 1985 as a part of a trade -- border patrol agent

in laredo, texas. i would like to be clear the board is a different place today than it was when i began my career. i have personally witnessed the evolution of the border over the past 26 years and both terms of additional resources to fight against the threat, as well as the change in adversaries to exploit border vulnerabilities. flash of the border patrol apprehended approximate 463,000 illegal areas as compared to 10 years ago when we made 1.6 my arrest, a more than 70% reduction. although we've seen positive indicators of a more secure border, i work continues and will not end as long as those who seek to into this country illegally. the border patrol's national strategy was implemented in 2004 and call for achieving control of the borders with a proper mix of personnel, tactical infrastructure and technology. we sought to expand control at the border with the existence

country and assistance with congress. in law enforcement we operate within the confines of the rule of law and regulations. would our efforts be easy without these legal frameworks? yes, it would. however, we would find a way to reasonably to solve problems within the parameters of law. the border patrol faced challenges with respect to operating around protected lands when they are in enforcement zones? yes, but again we been able to establish practical solutions to allow for mission success. in 2006 the secretary's of the department of homeland security, interior and agriculture signed a memorandum of understanding committing a signatory to ongoing operations on protected lands. it is understood the border patrol cannot routinely patrol protected land in vehicles. nonetheless, would have acts as either on foot, horseback and without restriction under exigent circumstances. our field commanders, but she's and the patrol agent in charge

our task to consider multiple and violate the violate the open sea in order to establish the requirements where resources are required and how to best apply them. each tract of land along the border has to be assessed individually as are tremendously of the requirements we work to the environment and regulations in order to abide by the law. albeit without sacrificing the nation's security. some of this activity can be time-consuming but in the end we have in place the necessary tactical infrastructure, technology our resources. additionally, we look at the border. each area has to be taken individually. no to stretch his are the same. through our security efforts the border patrol intense of a minimal impact on the environment. agents are on the line every day day in and day out interacting with the committees in which they live. there are many varying opinions on the board committees, public interest groups and the media alike get our mission is to enforce the laws duly enacted by congress. the border patrol recognizes we need many partners in our

nation's security efforts. we have learned to take a whole of government approach within law enforcement, within each of our duties responsibility and authorities at all levels, federal, state, local and tribal. we have strived to move beyond mere collaboration and work towards operational integration with our federal, state, local and tribal and our international partners moving forward in realizing the strength of joint planning and implementation in a targeted and focused manner. our path forward in our security efforts will be risk-based. accordingly we will increasingly depend on information and intelligence to describe the intent and capability of our adversaries, defined the threat while continuously assessing our vulnerabilities. in doing so we must be more vocal, agile and flexible. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i do look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issues of

border security in the department of interior's role in the administration's collaborative efforts to address in illegal cross-border activities on federal lands. i am kim thorstein the deputy assistant secretary for thought for the security in emergency management and into. i have been along for the professional for 25 years with both inter and the u.s. forest service and i've been involved in border issues for the last eight years. i enjoyed today by the acting director of the office of law for the security for the bureau of land management, jim hall, chief of law enforcement for the national wildlife refuge system, and lane becker, chief applause for the security and emergency services for the national park service. if i may i would like to submit my full statement for the record. we appreciate attention to your subcommittee said given to the issue of securing our borders. the department of homeland security including u.s. customs and border protection and border patrol has been given the mandate to secure our international borders and deter illegal border related activity. at injury we have the

responsibly of administering uniquely beautiful and environmentally sensitive land along the borders. we recognize the significant ecological and cultural values and we strive to maintain the character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the american people. would also recognize these two objectives, securing our borders and conserving our federal lands, are not mutually exclusive. we are not faced with a choice between the two. instead we can and should do both. we are proud of a strong working relationship based on cooperation and mutual commitment to a publishing are important agency mission among all of our partner agencies. federal agencies with law enforcement presence on federal lands along the borders include the border patrol, interiors agencies including the bureau of land management, national park service, fish and wildlife service, and the bureau of indian affairs. and the department of agriculture is worst service. our agencies have developed cohesive cooperative approach to border security. in march 2006 into dhs and agriculture in it into a memorandum of understanding

providing the departments with goals, principles and guidance related to securing the borders. we believe the guidelines contained in the m.o.u. have been effective in providing both interior and border patrol with the necessary framework to strike the appropriate ballot for patrol and infrastructure access to into your land. by border patrol. while continued to maintain an emphasis on protection of federal trust resources. since in into this m.o.u. the three departments have continually and successfully work together to carry out the tenets outlined in the m.o.u. at injury or whatever steps it departmentwide coordination structure to facilitate the regular coordination and collaboration between border patrol and a cherry agency representatives. additionally, interior, agriculture and dhs have found an agency environment and cultural stewardship training task force to build on and then to -- whose patrol i could

include federal land. collaboration is taking place with the border patrol in the field. the border patrol in cooperation with injury and agriculture a study and public lands liaison agent position for each of its 20 sectors. into your land measures community and collaborate on issues of mutual interest. in addition border patrol agents frequently conduct joint patrols of interior law enforcement personnel on interior lands. this close coordination provide staff with training and orientation on each agency's mission while enhancing homeland security activities and resource related investigations. a few examples are a few sample of the ongoing collaborative dialogue and strong relationship that interior agencies and personnel have developed with our colleagues in the border patrol. the deployment of border patrol personnel, equipment and infrastructure along the southwest border has led to significant improvements in border security. we are pleased with these

improvements because of enhanced security to our nation and also because these efforts lead to overall healthier conditions. during this deployment of additional border security resources we've worked closely and will with the border patrol to avoid or mitigate impacts of these operations on federal lands. in closing i would like to recognize the collective efforts at injury, dhs, agriculture have taken to meet the intent of the 2006 interagency m.o.u. and mr. commitment by our department to acknowledge the nation's of her agencies. chairman chaffetz a bishop, this concludes my statement. i would be pleased to answer any questions that you are other commitments -- were other members may have. >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present, to provide the department's views on border security of our national forest system lands. you have my written test me for the record, but i would like to take this time to emphasize some key points. first, the department and the

forest service take very sexy the need to secure our nation's border. we fully support as it is in our common interest that we address the legal he was border crossings, the smuggling of illicit contraband and people across the border, the crimes committed against those being smuggled and other activities. through all of this is important to recognize and empathize with the plight of undocumented foreign nationals who are seeking a life. yet, there are important, there aren't impacts of national forests on both the northern and southern borders, particularly so in the coronado national forest where we're seeing is issues related excessive trash, human cost of fire, the safety of the public. we are undertaking successful measure to mitigate these impacts. second, i want to emphasize the close working relationship we have with the border patrol and our sister agencies in the department in the department of the injury. as her testimony indicates, we participate in numerous joint patrol exercises have assigned a

full-time u.s. forest service liaison to the border patrol. communicate in real-time on the ground with each other and work expeditiously to allow the border patrol to ask the need to protect the embargo. just a few weeks ago the forest service chief was in southern arizona meeting with chief gil of the tucson sector of the border patrol. they toured the border by helicopters to learn firsthand the challenges we face together. there is much to do but we are seeing success. and so reinforce the general accounting office has even as does the close cooperation between our agencies. third, we are convinced a well protected border means well protected public lands. the more we can assess the border patrol with stopping illegal traffic, the less impact it will be on the national forest. today we are unaware of any request made by the border patrol where we have not been able to accommodate their needs in an expeditious manner as to protect the environment. lastly we want to thank the subcommittees for their

attention to this issue. we want to work closely with you and understand your concerns. our expense today tells us we can publish our missions of securing the border and protecting the environment recognizing these are not mutually exclusive objectives. we will continue to make interagency progress with the border patrol and her sister agencies in the department of the interior in the a competent of our mission. this concludes my verbal testimony. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i appreciate all of you being here. let me ask the first round of questions. looking at, for all of you, looking at the minimum funny for understate it appears a big part of the entire met agreement hinges on exigent or emergency circumstances. ms. thoreson, let me deal with you. what is in exigent circumstance? [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, is outlined in the m.o.u. what we try to do is assure that the border patrol agent and in their judgment determined what

in exigent circumstance was. when it was in pursuit of a -- >> is there a definition in the m.o.u.? >> yes. >> what is the definition? >> a exercising exigent emergency authorities to access land including a three to conduct motorized pursuit of cb peace at any time including designator recommended wilderness or in wilderness study areas. win in their professional judgment based on articulated facts, their specific exigent emergency involving human life, health, safety of persons within the area or posing a threat to national security. >> that is the key element. or posing a threat to national city. are you aware one of my staff question one of your parties, superintendents and even the director of the national park

service told a separately that in exigent circumstance is life or death only question is that what the m.o.u. says? >> no. >> okay. so this incorrect definition is not just the opinion of the parks service unfortunate that the fish and wildlife service director sent two letters in his opinion that an emergency is defined as life threatening circumstances, and otherwise border patrol has to continue to access the refuse on foot or horseback. gave them a warning if they violated his version of the m.o.u. within six months he would close all access down. are you aware of that? >> no, i'm not aware of that spent what are you going to do about that? >> well, what we will do, and we're continuing doing things with our partners, our agencies on the ground, ensure that the m.o.u. is enforced as written. >> that's nice. so you are not aware that the ground personnel are not operating under the same definition. ..

>> well, we have, you know, regular people on the ground designed to work the issues and operationally understand monk themselves how we will interpret -- not how to interpret, but that the framework exists to resolve any problems that are raised.

i refer them to the lands officer. i could call over to kim's office, and we could talk about what, you know, the perceptions or actual restrictions were or should not be. >> so if, under the gao report, there's multiple examples where it broke down. if -- >> as was said, my responsibility in the office as well as the folks in the field are to ensure the appropriate implementation of the mou. we, and in fact, the nou describes a mechanism that if things don't work out at the local level, it's up to the regional level and ultimately the head quarters level. there's measures as outlined in the framework of the mou. it's our responsibility to follow-up on the instances and ensure that is, in fact, happening. >> that doesn't work.

i appreciate it, but it's not working. the evidence tells us that and the accumulative evidence says that flat out is not working. the fires you refer to in your testimony, how many of those are intentionally set? >> intentionally set? we don't track the numbers. we track number of fires by human caused and through lightening. >> why don't you track arson? are you discouraged from doing so? >> not at all. >> why don't you track it? >> we zig into the numbers throughout the investigation to find a cause of the fires, and in that sense, we can get to the bottom of what cause the fires. >> you don't doe that now? you said you were not aware of any problems with the agency impeding the border patrol? check the gao report. my time is over. mr. tierney?

there'll be another round here. >> i guess i'm listening carefully on this and there seems to be agencies here, not such the mou or understanding doesn't allow for things to work properly, but there's instances where it was not implemented or worked effectively. is that what you witnesses are hearing as well? correct me if i'm not hearing properly. >> i think that's accurate. >> ms. thorson? >> yes. >> mr. jensen? >> i agree. >> is there ample training to all three departments to have an appreciation of the mou a enthe chain of how they corporate and work with others? >> there's an ongoing systematic way for folks to be exposed to it. we have it set up at each of the locations, and so that's a constant process because there's turnover in the field, relationships change, and so there's a constant, you know, revolution of people who learn and then need to know and then

move on. the next group gets the same kind of thing. it's like any other relationship. there are ebbs and flows in the level of contact and its effectiveness. >> are there a high percentage of people in between trainings or not trained yet? >> i have to get you specific numbers, but it's our intent at each of the levels to have folks subject matter experts in the mou and then have the responsibility for the liaison and operational contact. >> are any of you aware of any particular accident or incidents where the border patrol agents are absolutely impeded from carrying out responsibilities by interference through the enforcement of some of these wilderness laws? >> i'm not aware offing in specifically, but i'll tell you with 20,000 agents in the field, there's bound to be within the relationships differences of opinion and issues that get raised through the sector level

commands, the station level certainly, and then up to the headquarters. there's instances where we talk about these things at every level looking to solve whatever the issue is. >> ms. thorson? >> i agree with that statement. there are instances where folks on the ground need to work through things, but our continual talking with them, meeting with the collaborative organizations that we have and so forth are a constant effort to ensure any issues that are not getting resolved at the very local level are bumped up through that mechanism and all the way up to headquarters, involved in my office personally to ensure any time we hear there's some impediment of differences on the ground we figure that out and make it happen so the border patrol carries out their mission. >> is there disciplinary proceedings for those who misinterpret the mou?

>> the folks on the ground are bureau employees, and those bureaus do have preference plans and disciplinaries and a whole preference proplan -- >> do they use it? >> it is not my -- i can't speak to that actually since i don't work in those bureaus. >> well, that's part of the problem of bureaucracies. we talk about one problem, but you can't answer. will it be reasonable to assume those incidents reported by the general accountability office or those incidents that others here may point out or individual circumstances will be reviewed and action taken if warranted? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> your agency as well? >> absolutely. >> mr. jensen? >> absolutely. >> is there a mutually exclusive application of the wilderness laws and our security?

>> they are not exclusive, i agree. >> i agree. >> absolutely not. there's examples where we see success, and i think just this year we embarked upon a joint operation called operation trident that's proving how we can work together. >> with respect to fires, it's in your interest to make sure the borders are protected and people are not part of the human cause of fires; correct? >> absolutely. >> are you as a representative of the border patrol here to lodge a complaint of any sort about the way the environmental laws or conservation laws or wilderness everiness laws or anything impede your ability of the men and women to protect this country and security? >> no complaint. i agree the framework allows us to solve the problem in a practical way. it's best to do that at the field with the folks who are

responsible for implementation directly. >> and you'll do that? >> yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. chaffetz. >> are you all doppler with the report -- familiar with the report from 2011, the southwest border, we keep referring to the gao report. are you familiar with it? all three of you yes, yes? yes? i hope i'm pronouncing your name right. you wrote "border enforcement efforts on federal lands poses you neck challenges." what are the unique challenges? >> like a lot of the enforcement work that's done both for the border patrol and all law enforcement, there's a legal frame work. >> that is different because it is -- >> on protected land, yes it is. >> in the access, your ability to patrol is different than it is on say private land or different types of public land that are not designated

wilderness, correct? >> correct. >> it is different? >> absolutely. >> okay. 17 of the 26 border stations interviewed by the gao indicated when they attempted to obtain a permit or access portions of federal lands, delays and restrictions resulted from complying with land management laws. would you agree with that or disagree with that? >> it's in the report. i have no dispute about the fact. >> you also testify there's no problem, everything is row sigh, and i go back and read the report and you secured 129 miles of a 2,000 border. you can't come before the american people in the country and say everything is rosy and fine. people are dying. they are getting killed because we have these big holes in our security and they are going into some of the most inhospitable pieces of land, and they are dying. they are dehydrated, going through cactus-ridden areas, and they are dying.

there's border patrol saying go on foot or hours because we want to protect the cactus and the road runner. that's my concern. for you to testify routinely that everything is fine, it's not different, no insubstantiations, and then read that we're having permission troubles is troubling. let me go on. according to gao, 14 of the 17 agents 234 charge, agents in charge, people that you should be personal familiar with, of the border patrol stations indicated delays by federal land managers reported "they have been unable to oob tan a permit in a timely manner because of how long it takes to comply with environmental laws." so how have these delays based in this report lessen the agent's ability to detect undocumented aliens in some areas? >> the report is a snapshot in time. the framework that's within the

mou allows those agents in charge to make those requests, and when suggested by the border land task force to be reasonable, we sort through that and make it happen. to suggest that it's perfect -- that's not why i'm here. the relationship -- >> it is not perfect. i'll move on. as indicated by the gao, border patrol requested permission to move a surveillance system to a certain area. however, four months after the initial request, illegal traffic shifted to another area. as a result, border patrol "was unable to move the surveillance system to the locality desired and during the delay, agents were limited in their ability to detect undocumented aliens within a 7 mile raid yaws that could have been guarded. true or false? >> it's true. >> how can you testify

everything is fine and there's great relationships? you have a system that i think makes your border patrol agents and the united states of america safer, and these people here give you a four month delay. how come you're not here with the same type of outrage that i have? how come you're not saying we work together, we get along, we have people dying. how do you respond to that? you testified and we've listened to what you said that, oh, everything's fine. >> the framework allows for us to move through these issues and this problem. is it perfect? no. >> in this instance, the report that came out, it's four months away. ms. thorsen, how do you respond? four months delay. why does that happen? >> i'm looking at -- asking my folks to find examples on the national forest land here, and we're working as quickly as possible to work through the

requests that come through, and there's exampling in front of us now with the zone 20 project moving to build roads on restricted lands where we are seeing success. it does not happen immediately in every case, but we are making tremendous progress in working together to address the concerns as they arise. >> time expired. i yield back. >> sorry, mr. kildee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all of us feel on this issue certainly as strongly at mr. chaffetz, but some of us express ourselves differently. i've been here 34 years, and i find it a great opportunity to find people from the field who know the issue very well, and on the level of trying to learn at a high level, so i really

appreciate your enlightening us. i think we have this opportunity to learn from you. let me ask you this question. i'll address it to ms. thorsen, but any of you may answer. if there's an incident or a pattern of ignoring the mou we've been talking about, what is your reaction or response to that? should there be something stronger than an mou? should it be something in law? >> thank you, congressman. our actions, if there was a consistent pattern of ignoring the mou, as i stated earlier, we have a mechanism in place to bring that to our attention at headquarters, and numerous instances i personally get involved and other members of my staff talking with chief fisher of the border patrol to come

together to figure out what's going on, and then we also talk to our bureau representatives on bureau directors and/or their regional directs over those local units and come together to discuss what the issues are and to resolve those issues. we do it very high level for any incident on the border that gets to our attention that we know about, we will take action such as that to ensure that it gets resolved on the ground. we hope most are resolved locally, but they are not all. they do get to our attention. >> anyone else have any comment? i would encourage you to, you know, keep it at a high level or even raise the level of importance because when agreements are made, very often they are not easy to arrive at, but they are done for a reason, so i would encourage you to keep it at the high level. i think it's very important. i would not want to stop a chase

because of someone who didn't want to follow a memorandum of understanding which makes very good sense and it important for very often our national security, so i would keep it at the high level. if necessary, raise it to a higher level. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. pearce? >> thank you. are you familiar with the operating men ran dumb of understanding and the border patrol? >> not particularly, sir. >> well, in it, the -- it states clearly that a mobile command, mobile communication site there in big hatchet peak will be moved as soon as possible if the area is designated as wilderness. it's there now, but if wilderness, it can't be there.

isn't that an impediment? >> in that instance, that's an example, and i understand that the big hatchet mountain, and if legislation is passed, we have to work to ensure that it could stay there. >> no, i mean, it calls for it to be moved if it's designated wilderness. that says the legislation is trumping protection. you declare that wilderness sen security are not mutually exclusive, and i know it's not exactly wilderness area, but the oregon pipe national monument that i visited in 2006 at the park's subcommittee and they declared it's inhospitable for american travelers. is it still that way? it's wide open, completely open to american tourists are no warnings? >> i don't know the status of the visitation for folks.

>> still very alarming and the warnings are given to american tourists that you shouldn't be in the area. >> yeah. >> if the two are not mutually excluesive, why doesn't that area fit into your 129 miles of secure border? >> the definition is a lot longer conversation. it's measures in the field for -- >> i want to know why organ pipe is not cleaned up. why have you not stopped the traffic polluting the area and making it dangerous? >> there's been good progress. >> it's in the boy scout troupe with your kids in it without just your presence without -- i don't think so, sir. i'm sorry. i was there. i saw the stuff p i don't believe you would. >> there's been excellent progress since 2006, congressman. >> i hear that. just last year or the year

before a rancher was killed down in that area, and that was in retribution for him turning in the drug smugglers. the -- mr. jensen, we visited in the time period in 2006, there's places where booby traps, shotguns, growing massive areas of drugs in the forest itself. is that cleaned up? >> i'd have to go back and look at that specific area to know the status. i don't know. >> any other forests? you're familiar to the circumstance? >> the circumstance -- >> any other forests that are that many versions of illegal activity in it so people are warned not to backpack in that area because you could get your head blown off? >> we don't talk about it that way, but we make sure -- >> were the pictures given to me by the forest service

incorrect? >> i have to know the photos to know for sure. >> yeah. so you wouldn't talk about it, but the pictures may have been correct? they were given to me in a official capacity and official briefing, so you would think it's incorrect that you hit a trip wire and blows your head off with a sawed off shotgun protecting a marijuana field in >> we want to make sure visitors coming to the national forests are aware of the risks out there as in any time you head into the back country. i couldn't speak to the specific situation. >> any other forrests where that sort of danger exists? >> we are dealing with some similar issues in the cornado national forests, and visiters are away >> sequoia is one of two very dangerous categories, and you don't know if it's been cleared up? that is alarming, my friend. >> i'd like to follow-up with

you and understand the concerns you have. >> i mean, still, you're in the position you're in and don't know if we have eliminated those. that's what concerns me about the testimony of all three of you here today that you're saying that there nos problem with the wilderness or environmental rules, and yet you can't explain some of the most dangerous areas that exist bind my back door. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. it's my intention to turn now to mr. lynn and get think this round of questions. we have five or six minutes. well suspend for a few minutes, go vote, and have a 10 minute break if that's okay. mr. lynch? >> thank you. i think the part of the frustration exhibited by

mr. chaffetz was well-founded i think, and it's a result of the gao report, and i think this was a october 2010gao report on the southwest border, and gene was acting then, and i have enormous respect for him. i worked with him on a lot of different issues, but this report, you know, invites mr. chaffetz's frustration. it says that basically everything is fine. at least that's what the political appointees and higher level folks say, everything is fine and we're working together. talking with the agents in charge on the ground there, they say 17 of the 26 stations, you know, reported that there were limitations put on their ability to patrol those areas. specifically the patrol agents in charge of 14 of the 17 stations reported they have been unable to obtain a permit to

access certain areas in a timely manner because of how long it takes to work with land management folks, so -- and then earlier ms. thorsen you conceded folks on the ground were applying a different standard for border agents to get into certain areas. that's of great concern, and i think by this inconsistency in what we want to happen down there and what is happening is going to invite legislation here because the mou is not being followed, and it's against the backdrop of a very serious situation. i have a report here that says we had 600 more civilian homicides in one border town, juarez in 2010, than we had in all of afghanistan. afghanistan's 30 million people.

juarez is 1.3 million and there's 600 more homicides and that's right on our border. i'll be more angry than mr. chaffetz has been this morning if i thought that the safety of the people that i represented was being ignored, so you got to get your act together here. we expect you to protect the border, and we don't think that that's happening. now, you say that you can do this, that you can get together on this and make sure the environmental concerns are addressed, and still conduct robust security on the border. you need to do it. you need to do it. this is a, you know, this is a problem. you know, i think i've been to iraq and afghanistan about 22 times. i think i should be spending more time in mexico from reading these reports, and this is right on our border, and we can't afford to be slack anymore.

i'm hoping that either you address it with a tighter description of what is permissible for the border security folks, or you just come to congress and say we can't resolve this, and why don't you do it on our behalf, but, you know, this can't continue. this cannot continue. you know, the folks living on the border towns on the mexican side and the united states side deserve better. we have to get serious about this. i think, ms. thorsen, if you have folks on the ground applying a different standard restricting agents, then you need consequences here. i didn't hear a answer on that when the ranking member asked you are folks being disciplined when they stop border security

folks from going in there and doing their job, and i didn't hear a yes. i heard, well, we have guidelines that allow us to do it, but i didn't hear of anybody being fired from blocking access to certain areas on the part of the security folks. i know you have a rosy picture, but the facts don't bear that out, sir. i'm sorry to say. we got to be better at this, and, you know, like i said before, i'll close my remarks, but you're inviting congress to go in there and decide what the rules are going to be, and 435 people make that decision in the house and senate, and it may not come out the way you think it will or be a better solution than an mou cooperative mou between the two agencies is what i'm saying, so i just ask you as

mr. kildee suggested, you have to work together better and start living up to the terms of the mou and making sure that our customs and border patrol folks have access to that area. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. lynch. i'll explain the process just point of information from mr. pearce's question. >> 95% is wilderness. there's a vote taking place now, a second five minute vote and a third vote in 15 minutes. i'll ask members to come back here and vote quickly and come back here. i'm estimating about a 10 minute break we'll talk for voting. i apologize for this. this is an abnormal day. the morning should have been reserved for this. i'm sorry about that. i hate to walk out on you. we'll get this through quickly as possible, but we have to take the break right now. thank you, and we'll be back shortly. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so a short break in this hearing on border security and environmental laws. we are expecting several breaks through the course of the day as house members are holding voting on 2012 federal budget

proposals, so there will will be interruptions as members vote on the proposals. there's four alternative plans, and a vote on the republican plan finishes out the day at three o'clock eastern, and at the close of legislative business today, the house will start a two week spring break. the senate started their recess yesterday. you can see the debate and voting taking place in the house on c-span. once again, a 10 minute break give or take, and returning to live coverage after the vote. until then, your phone calls on washington journal from capitol hill. >> host: before we get into our question with you what you think the appropriate size of the military and how much money this country should spend on defense. i want an update on the budget discussions from richard cohen of the congressional cor spot. richard, thank you for being with us. >> caller: thank you. >> host: first of all, let's talk about the continuing

resolution passed yesterday because new calculations about the compromise came out from the congressional budget office yesterday. what did we learn about how much affected $38 billion spending cut compromise has on federal spending? >> caller: well, the estimate showed if you look at it one way they would be much smaller for this year in the remainder of in year. only maybe just like 1% of what they thought they were getting, but you also have to look long term, and over the long term i believe cbo did say that it does achieve some significant savings, and those savings would snowball over the years. >> host: now, when we get to the vote last night, the republican conference didn't hold to the. in fact, the speaker lost a considerable number. more than on the continuing resolution, 59, in fact, i read it would be 60 if louis without

#* would have been on the floor to vote. what does that mean for future budget debates? >> caller: it could go a couple ways. one way to look at it was he needed to rely on democrats to get that bill passed yesterday, and so he might have to keep that in mind going into negotiations on both the debt limit and a bigger budget deal. on the other hand, he does, most speakers do want to keep control and have the support of their membership and it might cause him to work harder in future bills to gain the support of his entire conference so that he doesn't lose that many or any members. >> host: with that in mind, give us a preview of the vote today on the so-called ryan budget. >> caller: yeah. well, there's five different alternatives offered including a conservative republican plan, and so he could lose a few

votes. some republicans, a few announced they probably are not going to support it. i think the expectation is that he won't lose anywhere near the 59 he lost yesterday. he could lose a few, but generally, this is in some ways an easier vote for members. there's not a government shutdown on the line, but all democrats vote against it and all republicans vote for it. >> host: thanks for the briefen before the day begins in congress at 9 a.m. eastern time. appreciate it. >> caller: you're welcome. >> host: let's talk about the appropriate level of spending this country should spend on defense. this is 9 president's remarks about defense spending in his address wednesday of this week here in washington. let's listen, and then we'll come back and somehow you some of the articles about it.

>> just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. we can do that while still keeping ourself safe. over the last two years, secretary bobgates took on wasteful spending. saving $400 billion in current and future spending. i believe we can do that again. we need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but we have to conducts a fundamental review of america's missions, capabilities, and the role in a changing world. >> host: i told you we would have a line for republicans and independents and democrats. we have an active duty military line for your thoughts as you are inside the service about what the size and spending should be. are there areas that we can cut? areas that we should grow?

is it about the right size? we look forward to hearing from you. to get a sense of what the federal budget looks like, this is the budget pie, and this red area here is what is currently allocated to defense spending and the defense spending, department of defense, is in the vicinity of about 14% of the budget overall. that's a look at the fy2010 spending. an article from the president's remarks this week waiting for your phone calls, obama puts deficit ball back in pentagon's court. this is the "new york times". when robert gates disclosed his budget in january, there's $78 billion on top of hundred millions of other savings on the defense. those were wrenching decisions on the pentagon. president obama now called for substantially tightening the

pentagon's budget again ordering the national security establishment as a hole to slice $400 billion in the 2023 fiscal year. the decision was relayed to mr. gates one day before mr. obama's speech on wednesday. let's get to your calls. a call from baltimore. you're on the air, democrats. >> caller: yes, hello, good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: yes. i think the democrats and republicans in congress need to get together and compromise, find the best way to deal with the defense and any of the other bills that come before them for a vote because the vote yesterday in the house proved one thing, and that's that the tea party republicans are irrelevant. not only were they not able to muster enough votes to keep the legislation from passing, they were not even -- their votes were not even needed to pass the

legislation. >> host: let me move you from the general debate, but to focus on how much this country spends on defense and whether or not our priorities are correct. what are your own thoughts on that? >> caller: they should come together and decide what is best for the country. >> host: a democrat from baltimore, thank you. next is a call from ithaca, new york, independent, good morning, allen. >> caller: thank you, thank you for your c-span. i've been an active war activist when i got back from vietnam in 1966, and looking back on the history of the last 40-50 years, i'd have to say that the only way we're going to be able to deal with the deficit is to take the profit out of military production that is nationalized military production.

it's, you know, whether it's been korea, vietnam, iraq, it seems that the desire for profit on the part of certain people, certain corporations in this country has driven foreign policy. i think we need to take the profit out of war and nationalize military production. >> host: thank you for your call. showing you some budget statistics. one of the noble things that since 2001 before the 9/11 attacks, defense spending in the country has roughly doubled, and that's just for department of defense, not including the homeland security, cia, and the like. in 2001, $296 billion in the budget, and in the continuing resolution passed yesterday for this year's federal spending, dod is funded at $513 billion. our question for you this morning is do we spend about the right amount on defense? you advocate spending more given the security priorities in the world? would you see areas for cutting,

and what would they be? wakeman, ohio, christine, a republican there. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i love c-span. >> host: thank you. >> caller: for defense, that's what the government is supposed to be doing. they are not to be saving mice or saving turtles or sending welfare to pakistan and everywhere else. our defense is to defend the united states. they should not be talking about military. military should be paid from the beginning. there should be no question. they should be starting to reform welfare, reform some of the other things, don't attack old people. don't attack our military. why don't we try getting the young people off of welfare back to work. i don't understand why we keep attacking our military? i really don't. we should be -- >> host: thank you very much. supporting defense spending by the federal government. 're ri, michigan. tom, a democrat. good morning.

>> caller: hi, good morning, susan and c-span. my point is the request from the republican stole my thunder. if you take the profit out, that's the end of it, but we maintain military bases all over the world since world war ii. if the countries want our defense, they should pay for it. >> host: thanks for your call. get rid of the foreign bases, if we didn't need it before 9/11, we'll never need it. obama puts the defense ball back in the pentagon's court. some argued while the president's directive founded sweeping, the pentagon could save that much by limiting its future spending increases to the rate of inflation projected by the white house. this is easily absorbable and it's not really a cut said gordon adams from the university who oversaw budgets during the clinton white house. the work by the bipartisan group

led by the republican of new mexico and former director of the clinton administration said reducing the spending by $900 billion over ten years. president obama's deficit reduction commission called for saving $1 trillion over that period. mr. adams said 400 request is up 7% of what the administration projected spending in the military over 12 years. military spending has grown at an inflation adjusted average of 7% a year since the attacks in 2001. the rate is nearly 12% a year before adjusting for inflation including the costs of wars in iraq and afghanistan. in passing the compromise, they cut the base budget to 530, and unless they reduce the duties they plan to expand, there could be difficulties. they have done the easy things of cutting programs suggested

one analyst. springfield, ohio, charlotte, a rom. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think that they should support the military. >> host: are you saying to increase or stay at about the same size? >> caller: well, if they need an increase, they need it. >> host: all right. >> caller: i think obama, he is just not capable of running the country. i'm sorry, but you don't talk about your president, but i think he's about the worst president we've ever had. >> host: thanks from ohio. next up is a call from alexandria, virginia. john, a democrat. go ahead, please. >> caller: hi, thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. in my opinion, the united states spends much more on defense than

is really required. if you look at how much the united states spends compared to the rest of the world, we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, and i don't think that's necessary. i don't think that that level of spending is required to keep our country safe. i think that we could do with significantly less spending. we spend probably two to three times more than russia and china combined who most people think are major potential enemies, and i just don't think that that's required. i think we could do a lot less, and either take the savings in taxes or cuts or use it on other programs. >> host: thanks, john. there's a few comparative number dploably. there's a think tank in sweden, the stockholm group.

cnn.com did a story about it led by u.s. world military spending rises 1.3%. here's a bit of what they say in this. the world's government's shelled out $1.63 trillion, a 3% increase since 2009. the united states accountanted for nearly all of the increase, but the stoke home peace research institute noticed south increases by african countries as well. by every issue, u.s. military spending rising 2.8% leaves every other nation in the dust. the $698 billion accountanted for the spending in the world. military spending amounted to 4.8 mcof the u.s. growth domestic product compared to the world average of 2.6%. next, a call from seattle. this is gary, an independent there. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i agree with the callers, take

the profits out and pull out bases we don't need overseas. it's well over done. let's put the money back in the social program here in the united states. we got enough defense spending to spend ourselves. there's no worry about that. >> host: when you say take the profit out, how would that work, really? >> caller: well, you know, the amount of defense built to protect basically, you know, if you look at our situation in the united states, are we defending an empire or what? i don't quite understand the level of spending. it just doesn't do us any good anymore. it's just a waste of money. i think that if we become less of a police force and just defend, you know, our country with public defense, i think we can take care of ourselves, but being a police around the world and spending this money is the answer. i just -- particularly looking at the middle east, what are we

building there? what's the situation with afghanistan? i mean, how long is this going to draw out? i just thought all the states here in the country -- i just think that the military and we need to make real cuts there and save money. >> host: thanks, gary. this is the chart drawn by the world fact book on military expenditures from the cia in 2010. if you look at the color coding here, the darker the color, the greater percentage of the gdp. here's the united states with 45% going towards the military. look around the global area, the middle east is the greatest percent of gtb going to military spending. next, republican, jason from i understand. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i was in the military for ten years, and i wondered why we

have 11 aircraft carriers, and if you add up all the rest of the world together, they have ten. my other point is that if we spend double of what china spends, we're spending $200 billion which would save us $400 billion just next year. i'll hang up now. thank you very much for c-span. >> host: thank you for calling. jason talks aircraft carriers and we pulled statistics on that from wick peed ya. there's 11 in sieves and one in reserve. this is a list of the aircraft carriers in service and the rest of the world. the italian navy two, the indian navy one. france, one, brazil one, british navy, one. china operating zero aircraft carriers. that's just one measure of how we deploy our defense dollars. vancouver, washington, james, an

independent. good morning, sir. >> caller: good morning, and thanks for c-span. a couple things about military spending. i'm in the international guard. since 9/11, i've been on active duty, and before that, you know, we all go out, do our missions and training and whatnot. you know, a big part of the problem with the military spending is that there's too much, you know, it's too much of a good ole boy's group. a lot of the troupes there, their equipment is purchased for them. they don't get it. instead of us getting the equipment in theater, it's given to the iraqi national police. when i was over there, i was driving a humvee that would barely go and the ip's were driving around on complete armored brand new humvees just given to them. you know, the training too, you know, the last time i went to a

place, they went ahead and said i wouldn't need my weapon. they issued me a piece of junk. i couldn't make sure my weapon was good to go on theater. the air force asked for a four man heavy weapons team, and i was there for a month, and not once did i touch a heavy. a lot of the generals they get out of the military, they go to work for a lot of these big corporations, and they turn around and sell a lot of crap to the pentagon we don't need, and the things we do need, we just simply don't get. 50-something of every dollar is wasted on the pentagon budget. that's the operational level. >> host: all right, jim, thanks, from washington. this is a tweet having second thoughts on iraq withdrawal and two other wars is not an option. wars cost money.

defense spending in our news program airs sunday morning with the man who heads the house on services committee. here's one of the comments he made about the debate over defense spending. >> all of these proposals, these cuts happening, do you feel like the united states national security is at stake when he make these kinds of cuts? i definitely do. if you go back a year ago, secretary gates was giving us different numbers. projecting ahead we said we would not go below a 1% increase over and above each year, over and above inflation, and now we're cutting from those projections $78 billion. over and above the $100 billion that the chiefs were asked to go back and find that they got to keep, most of that, they had to come up with 20 billion. >> 400 billion?

>> over 12 years. >> i'm assuming you're not saving that much in defense programs. >> i'm hoping that was an opening shot in a presidential campaign. >> host: that interviews airs in our news maker spot on sunday morning here on c-span and sunday evening. the times are on the screen there, 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern time. jack is on the air. >> caller: good morning. you know, two-time medal of honor winner, won twice, marine general butler, his take after 40-some years of being in the marine corp. years ago and there's two things fighting for, bill of rights and our coastline. anything else he said is for the bankers and profiteers, and since you're talking about spending cuts, if i may just say

this, you know, right now we're spending about -- i pay my federal income tax this year, over $5,000 in federal income tax, and there's a guy like paul ryan talking about cutting down the road, cutting medicare, i finance -- not me personally, but taxpayers finance his medical coverage by about $10500 a year. it takes a lot of nerve for him to get on and talk benefits for people, and we're financing it. it works out to $875 a month, and he's making $174,000 a year. the senate -- find out how many senators are collecting this subsidy. they call the senate the millionaires club. it doesn't surprise me a bit there's senators worth millions

of dollars getting a $10500 yearly subsidy. it's an outrage. >> host: thank you. we looked on the internet for statistics. number one on the list is china according to 2008 figures, 2.25 million under arms. the united states of america a million below that. india below that at 1.3 million. russia at 1.245. north korea at 1.170. those are the top numbers of standing armies and order of magnitude. next is a telephone call from williamsberg, virginia. this is russell, a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: yes, sir, your comment, please. >> caller: i spent my time -- i spent my time in the military

during the vietnam era. spent time in the army reserves, and i've worked as a subcontractor for the navy for a number of years. my observation is that if the -- if they cut back on the budget, then this applies i say throughout all the government agencies. at the end of the year, burg the course of the -- during the course of the year, we would have, you know, the usual flights. i was a -- helicopter crew chief, mechanic. we would have flights for regular training, but at the end of the year, there would be massive flights because they had to spend the money. while i was working as a subcontractor, same observations throughout the agency. there's requests even for

supplies that the reasons couldn't be supplied to you. you couldn't fulfill them, but at the end of the fiscal year, people could get all sorts of equipment, new computers. to me, that's something if they really want savings, to watch the end of the year savings. you can take over the course of a many, many years how often this goes on. >> host: thank you, russell. from twitter, forcing government functions to operations lowers quality. we must stop that insider gravy train. talking defense spending this morning and what kind of priority you see it for spending in the midst of the big budget debate in the country. next is a call from char lot, north carolina. democrat there. >> caller: yes, i just wanted

to make a comment on this fund. i just believe that we're spending too much money i mean already. we have so many bases around the world, and it's unnecessary. you know, we are the most fearful people in the world. it's unbelievable, but, yet we want to call ourselves, most people want to call themselves christians, and i've never known anyone that believed in god or jesus christ to be so much in fear. it's unbelievable. i just don't understand why people are so much in fear of war. i mean, whatever happened to them believing in their god? it don't make any sense to me. i have a question for you. how come you keep referring to our commander in chief as

mr. obama? how come we can't just refer to him as the president of the united states. thank you. >> host: i'm reading from newspaper articles. he's president obama and speaker of the house title is used as well. from the "wall street journal" this morning, a story about the defense secretary robert gates who is concerned about the military spending debate. he writes in this article and says defense secretary says they have to scale back the overseas commitment and shrink to meet president obama's proposed defense cuts. mr. gates believes identifying missions the country is willing to have the military forego over the next decade. the president ups the anti in a situation that doubled since 2001. house republicans led by paul

ryan put forward a competing plan with $178 billion in cuts. mr. gates identified that prior to obama's speech. there's new fault lines between democrats and republicans within the gop fighting commonground to stifle the national deficit. while mr. ryan's proposal incorporates mr. gate's suggestive cuts, senator rand paul of kentucky said defense reductions must go further. back to calls. ralph, a republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning, susan. talking about the last caller talking about that we was the most powerful people in the world. we was at the time of world war ii was over. if we were most feared now, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 like we was. as far as the defense cuts, i mean, we believe we need to maintain it to take care of

ourselves. if not, we will be hit again. look what china's done done. they done stole our stealth fighting ability, and now they are building nine new nuclear warships. what happened to our economy? we need to grow our military or keep it like it is, or we will really be in bad trouble. >> host: all right. >> caller: one more thing, please. >> host: all right, ralph, what's the last point? >> caller: i was in the military for nine and a half years. >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: honestly, where the military spending goes to is the roads for those guys after we blow them up over there. to the war lords, millions and millions and millions of dollars got to the war lords, they leave the country with that money, hide with it, that's something that needs to be stopped is paying them to say they're not

going to fight or tell us something, and then they leave with all that money, and we still fighting them. >> host: thank you so much from virginia. twitter suggests reallocation. build good will around the world. getting a number of e-mails on this topic. here's buddy in north carolina writing there's nothing wrong with what the defense department buys, but how they pay for it. also by e-mail, george in seeder ridge, california. the gop says the government do you want create jobs, but does well for the industrial military complex. the gop supports this, but not the worker at the post office. . .pendent there. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: it's plain and simple to me. we ever a department of