and step back. not voting for trump voting for clinton. it's just a matter of math. a flawed candidate should not prevent us form opposing a more dangerous one, one that has a clearly articulated world view. i don't care if she talks about her savior or not, i have interested in whether or not your deeds match your speech. do you believe in the denigration of marriage and the violation of the pre-born. you said you you were to protect american citizens, what differences does it make anyway. as a result we have dead american citizens. the questions we have to answer is this, what will you do for the country? :

>> donald trump has said he would get rid of the johnson amendment. there's a distinction. with the president protect our country? i discussed i benghazi. i donated to elaborate. with the president built our economy? one candidate has a thousands of employers. the other candidate hasn't driven her own car in years. there's a distinction between the two. which president will be open to protecting the position believe a spouse to practice the by evangelical christians? which has met with evangelical christians?

pat dry. the bible tells us to be sharp as serpents and innocent as doves. he told us not only with our heart renewed but our mind was transform. in not only economy with your life and your hard budget on me with sound thinking. seek wisdom. this is a time for followers of jesus christ to not only think biblically but critically. from what i said those are not mutually exclusive. >> thank you, janet. thank you, erick. we will have time to follow up even more in the queue at a time. now our next round and were switching the order on sort of the pro-of the anti-trump this time next we're going with bishop harry jackson. bishop jackson is a senior pastor of hope christian church in maryland and founder of the high impact leadership coalition. is one of the chief conveners of the reconciled church come healing the racial divide movement, and his book, high

impact african-american churches, is co-authored with george, nominated for the golden deli award by the evangelical christian publishers association. jackson will argue in favor of supporting draw. >> thank you, dr. johnston. want to start with a little bit of a story. i begin pastoring in the state of new york after finishing mba from a well-known eastern business school, and i found myself starting a bible study. folks who wound up coming to the bible study, most of them happened to be white, and that the community had but one person black and eventually we started a church. and i became in that setting pro-life, profamily. and also believe that we needed

to engage in changing transforming our culture through our political system. so with that as a beginning statement, want to say that donald trump is being challenged about race and racism, and we are living in an interesting time where he may be the only one able to bring some substantive healing to the racial divide. because god is in the details. and the details are practical answers, is where we stand. one of the challenges and talking about race in terms of politics is that often black christians see thing, hispanic christians see things through a lens of justice. and they want justice now, thanks to be more fair and even an equal amount.

on the other hand, white evangelicals often are hung up on rights issues. and talk about marriage and life. and though they are exclusive the bible does not say righteousness or justice of the foundation, because righteousness is justice. i believe if we are right relationship with the lord that we want to create an atmosphere of justice in our land. all too often blacks have been calm and hispanics, have been in a sense able to settle with the politics of grievance. so he says hey, i like you, i understand you, and that's been good enough. no real answers are coming. so i believe that hillary clinton will simply perpetuate the status quo, the what she's done for 30 years, and the over

criminalization of the black community, and welfare dependency will be continued. seven brief reasons why between these two i would vote for donald trump. the first three are for all general christians, and the remaining four which i believe really the emphasis, having emphasis on where blacks are and hispanics are. verse, religious freedom and liberty. the johnson amendment as was already mentioned is the challenge for us, and donald trump says that he wants to do away with that. is for religious liberty and freedom. number two, supreme court justices, and i believe that we are going to have to live with

for up to a 40 or impact whoever gets in those amazingly powerful seats -- 40 year impact. there is the support of israel. donald trump has articulated a position that he will be pro-issue. those of us who believe the bible in a very literal sense believe that there is something to supporting israel as a nation, not to say they are always right on all of their policies, but whether we want to support and service support the existence of israel versus the annihilation. i want to talk more specifically about african-americans for my fourth point, and i believe that education reform is critical. the opportunity to charter schools is really important. my own daughter worked in the

city in charter schools for about four years, and i believe that we have to some a change this thing about where education is going. 80% of the people incarcerated in america today are functionally illiterate. and we have a problem. one thing that we could do it is that if we could really guarantee that every person in the third grade in all for urban churches could read, it would be amazing. and it what kind of empty out some of the jails. if, for me, business apartment. i believe that economic plans, donald trump as one. urban improvement will make a difference force. it's interesting that under the bush administration, 8% of the loans that were given to small businesses were given to black

businesses. under president obama, 1.8% by the small business administration figures were given to or used in minority businesses. so capital formation is obviously something important in terms of starting, maintain businesses. we know in urban situation if it doesn't come if i can call at this am is going to blossom like a rose, we are going to need to get jobs in urban centers. so having some idea that there be more equity in terms of the business empowerment will be very, very important for us. i think, six, nonviolent offenders returning home, getting a chance to redeem their lives for this. i served on the board of is in

fellowship. i think it's interesting that if you look at the recidivism rates of people going back to prison, you'll find that often times there isn't an opportunity for these guys to restore can to develop their lives appropriately. and i think that in pragmatic ways donald trump will look at these things are 10th in seventh and finally, this family tax incentive is important for all people, all christians if we are going to perpetuate a society visit built upon a nation of families. but i would argue that an african-american and hispanic communities that family oriented tax come a profamily tax incentives are significant.

those seven points are some of the reasons, i could go on and on and try to delve into the whole more details around the political side of things. but i would also say that right now status quo, the obama administration, democratic party has paid by his board inactivity in terms of solving urgent urban problems. it is no secret that we are on the verge of explosive, pilot -- violent outrage and there's a generational shift that's going on. we also have a dynamic in the black community and hispanic committee for the least to black americans today. one is striving, and another is trapped in a conundrum of class

generational poverty which is aggravated i raise. i think you at the same thing in the hispanic community. which one of the candidates will be proactive to even think about solving problems? i also believe that having a citizen politician will be important for us and we're at a place in our culture that the folks who control the system, grasping little fingers need to be broken off the controls. and we need a change. we need to get some organized and strategic chaos for a moment. and i believe that we need to redefine and reestablished some of our priorities. so those seven points and my experience leads me to saying, this time i will support donald

trump. thank you very much. >> thank you, bishop jackson. next we'll hear from bill wichterman, a former senior congressional staffer, special assistant to president george w. bush. esa legislative advisor in washington, d.c. and in international law for before entering politics the word as a missionary to turkish workers in west berlin, germany, and is fully present of faith and law, a ministry to congressional staff seeking to integrate their faith with a policy work. he will speak against the candidacy of donald trump. bill, take it. >> thank you. thank you for hosting this debate. it's an important question but i'm grateful -- lazing into the focus of this want to thank bishop jackson, janet parshall, turn 11. you've all been laboring in the be a long time and so thank you.

evangelical faith far more difficult choice this election is increasing in the last half-century. the choice that divide us with many good people of both sides of the debate. sadly the division has also prompted the questioning of motives. this is unhelpful and unfair. we will that god judge motive. our attempts to be e. pluribus unum are hard enough without assuming the worst of everyone else. a quick word about me. you have a hard time getting to my right. i'm a republican because i'm a conservative, and a conservative because i'm a christian. i believe that conservative policies best reflect the christian worldview. but i'm careful not to demonize the politics that i don't pretend to speak for god. the driving modification and what politics is the same as that for the rest of my life. to put the lord first in my heart into my actions. i was ready to support any of

the other 16 republican candidates for president, but there was one i couldn't support, and he won. this is an uncomfortable season for me on many levels. not least of which is to be divided from so many allies inside my party. i can't wait until this season is over and we can recover unity. or at least that's my hope. explaining my opposition to go public analyze from what i've heard evangelievangeli cals are sporting a. as best as sporting a. has been selected help able down to three justifications. one, he's the lesser of two evils. number two, god uses that people for good purposes. and three, trump is a good man. the first argument that trump is the lesser of two evils is the most compelling of the three to me. in fact, it's an argument i've used many times trying to convince my friends not to vote for a third party candidate

because the republican wasn't sufficiently pure. i respect my friends who concluded they must vote for trump, however reluctantly. they believe the supreme court hangs in the balance, and trump is more likely to appoint conservative justices. i think they're right about that. as one who worked on judicial nominations under senate majority leader for its and in the bush white house, i care deeply about the court. and yet i've concluded that this justification is insufficient for two reasons. the first, trump may be a threat to our democratic republic. this is a serious charge. unfortunately, trump's statements have given me ample reason to be concerned. i care about the supreme court because i care deeply about the government had to do to us by the founders. the founders knew how difficult it would be to sustain a democratic republic. benjamin frankel as we have heard said we've given you a

republic, if you can keep it. just because we have preserved popular sovereignty or more than two centuries doesn't mean it will go on forever. i love the constitution because it reflects the framers fundamentally judeo-christian worldview that we are fallen creatures that god made us for liberty. trump, on the other hand, has too often demonstrated contempt for the rule of law. he has set up more like a strong man, inpatient with constitutional constraints. he advocates death to the innocent family members of terrorists. he said you have to take out their family. he advocates torture, not as a means of extracting important intelligence but as a means of retribution. he said he would do a hell of a lot more than waterboarding. he said military rulers would open his unlawful orders because i've never had any problem leading people. fic do it, they are going to do

it. he'these repeatedly praised dictators like vladimir putin, plotting and as a strong leader. gary bass truck, a russian a plan of them and deplores trump's praise saying who is a strong leader in the same way that arsenic is a strong drink. why in the world would trump praised putin again and again, unless it's because he actually admires him? maybe it's safer to assume this time trump is in line. trump also said this, when the students board in tiananmen square, the chinese government almost blew it. been different issues. they were horrible but they put it down with strength. that shows you the power of strength. our country is right that perceived as weak, as being spit on by the rest of the world. trump's encouragement of violence against peaceful protesters should have no place in our republic, much less in

the republican party. among his many statements are these i'd like to punch them in the face. try not to hurt them. if you do, i'll defend you in court. don't worry about it. knock the crap out of him. trump admires strength, whatever form it takes. this is inimical to the gospel which exalts faithfulness and humility and meekness, things that are strong because they rely on god. this leads to the second and most compelling reason why i believe the lesser of two evils argument doesn't stand. trump corrupts us. some people argue the never trump crowd focuses on trump's weaknesses and ignores clinton. not so. we know clinton is that we are not supporting or. yet it's true that the higher standard for a republican nominee. trump corrupts what it means to be a republican. if we support him we become complicit in his behavior.

trump may i remind you mox disabled people. brags about how many married women he slept with the as prisoners of war such as senator john mccain are not heroes, since they were captured. he accuses and nativeborn american judge of mexican heritage of being unable to their liberal in the case against trump which speak of i called a textbook definition of a racist comment. insist muslim-american father of a fallen soldier has no right to question him. he accuses my old boss president george w. bush as the reason for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the advocates of religious test as it was allowed into the country. contrary to the very reason our nation was founded. and he charges the father of santa cruz as an accomplice in the murder of president john f. kennedy. many people who will not vote for clinton because they believed she's a liar are voting for trump because they hope he's

alive and he doesn't really mean what he says. as an aside it's worth noting some evangelicals did not vote for romney because he wasn't conservative enough. trump is far to the left of romney. he supports government run health care is. he opposes and other forms. he wants to expand and. he opposes free trade and has a long history of supporting liberal candidates. we would like to behind this and would undermine the credibility in the eyes of watching world and more than that we do violence to our movement saying the ends justify the means. another argument of whether evangelical supporting donald trump is god uses bad people for good purposes. this is surely true. but where in scripture does it direct us to support bad people? we are not called to do bad so good will result in odd ways are behind us but our job is to support good candidates. i've heard some evangelicals

leaders say we need a bad man to stand up to the bowling from the left. the applications that a good man or woman who plays by the rules is not up to the task. it's almost as if we are hiring a hitman to play dirty for the sake of good governance. this has nothing to do with our faith. it reflects a lack of faith and the power of virtue to do what needs to be done. we don't need to do bad to do good. in fact, that impossible if scripture is to be believed. the ends and means both count in god's moral accounting. final argument in favor of trump is one that completely mystifies me. namely, trump is not bad. in fact, he's good. a truth teller and humble. another reagan. trump has supplied a liberal judicial nominees should be assassinated, and he is played with fire and suggesting without proof that the election is

rigged to say that the possibility of serious civil strife if he loses. and he's a man who never admits he's wrong and rarely asks god for forgiveness because he believes he rarely does anything wrong your if trump is a good man, and i've got an entirely different definition of what good he is, so i will stand against trump and clinton. instead i will vote for evan mcmullen, a conservative andy goodman will be on the ballot in about half the states. they could be a write-in candidate in almost every state. and if no one wins two under 70 electoral votes, the house back will decide the outcome -- house of representatives and mcmullen to be elected or improbable? does. impossible? no. know, especially because trump doesn't deserve our vote. it's an audible path for those of us who want to be able to vote for an honorable conservative. i hate the thought of hillary clinton being elected president.

she will never get my vote your but i will not compromise core principles for the sake of party allegiance. if trump becomes what it means to be a republican, then i will not be a republican. hopefully consolation turn out to be a case of temporary insanity. but i will not allow trump to be the face of the nation to the world. not with my vote not allow vulgarity to stand in place of virtue. not with my vote. i will not stand idly by while our national character. now with my vote. as christians were called to do god's bidding in god's way. this means doing what we should and contesting the results to him. >> thank you, bill. all right, bishop harry, your response. five minutes. >> five minutes. first, bill, i thank you for your comments and i know, since

i know, i know that you have a sincere faith. and i think what i'm looking at is an individual who has run a campaign from a media perspective almost like a shock jock, saying things to get attention, and then coming from a kind of construction manager kind of perspective in new york. so i'm looking at that as this candidate is growing. he is making some strides. is approach -- is approach to having the one-liners, other things chosen well in the primary. i think i will go back though to this idea that america in the 11

to 12 years i've been working in this whole area of speaking out on social issues, engaging as a conservative because of my christian background, i think it's time for us to face raise issues with practical solutions and base class issues and i think that unfortunately, again, i'm looking at the choices. unfortunately, the democratic party has had something of an adulterous relationship with the black community and hispanic community, and it's like they show up at midnight and they want what they want the way they wanted to advocate gotten what they want, the vote, after showing up the sunday before tuesday, we don't get no flour, no dinner, no romance. i think this is going to have to

stop. i think the trump candidacy is a manifestation of the fact that principled conservatives and republicans have failed to carry the water for us to that in some ways to talk a lot about high principles. they have done nothing. and because of that, folks are looking for options. so unwilling to take my vote and to take risk, to make a judgment and assessment that one definition of insanity, if we keep doing the same old things and expect different results, then we are insane. so i do believe that the thought behind the character comments you made, the lesser of two evils makes a lot of sense. and i especially agree that there has to be a higher standard as we go forward for

republican nominee i'm concerned, if i can go on just what was in my time limit. i'm concerned that in us debating about mr. trump may be in the wrong way, we are not addressing the fact that most liberals see all of us on the side, and uncle tom is racist. they are wearing that night of the portals -- backstab deplorable. i don't think we'll change it fighting among ourselves. i do think we will have to finally stop saying that big government is bad, all these things, and for doing something about changing the way the government works in the world. and we have to also show some

compassion. and again, i think his about face, and is going into the black community, hispanic community is the time he may be a change agent. so i am praying. i wish we were not at this point, but this is where we are. and for the reasons i've stated, i believe that pragmatically addressing and looking at class and race issues with an eye towards fixing it is the only way forward for america in a very practical sense. thank you very much. >> thank you, harry. and, finally, bill, your response. five minutes. >> yeah, i completely agree with bishop jackson that we needed a lot more to care for the poor. i've been deeply involved with

the poor national and international income and people sometimes have said to me how can you be a conservative and care about the poor? i am a conservative because i care about the poor. i limited within my own party. i think there is always, there's a segment has been working on this for a long time and another segment that says those people go for us. we don't need to worry about them. which again inimical to the gospel, to care for the least of these. that the you say he's a shock jock, i'm profoundly concerned about that for two reasons. one is for so let's assume he doesn't, that concerns me. because the same things get elected that he doesn't mean that a profoundly disruptive for our society. the other possibility is that he does need to that's where i come back to where are the good things of trump we seems like this one runs deep, that notion of strength with impatience with democratic constraints, his

admiration for people who admires in this country. why would we cut by a guy like vladimir putin? or admired the tiananmen square butchers? why would he say this? and not just one is of offhanded remark but again and again. because i think that's what he really appreciates and a doors. we have to take that seriously. that's why one of the most profound statements he made that concerns me was when he said in the debate that military leaders will open any. and walked it back this much the next day the how about on the judicial nomination when he suggested to his kind i would call it, second amendment, maybe they would be taken out. and then he comes back, walks back and since i'm kidding, kind of. what does that mean? is that kind society we want where we are killing one another over our disagreements? the pro-life movement has worked

within the rule of law for a long time, and rightly so. we want to save babies but we don't advocate killing abortionists were punishing women. we want to work a program within the rule of law. rule of law is a precious thing. look around the world, see how many places are punitive democracies and willing or not. places where many parts of the world if you see the police coming, you run the other way. not because you are corrupt but because they are. and to think that the rule of law is inviolate and no matter what we do do it gets want to be preserved. it is profoundly reckless and makes my blood boil when he calls for extrajudicial things like beating up people, knocking the crap out of them. that's not appealing to the best angle of our nature. i think he does a good for something to us, many good people are so mad and so angry at the bigotry and intolerance of the other side that they want their own guy to beat it and, as

i said. we have to trust virtue. we have to trust god. we have to do things god's way. we can't take shortcuts. my concern is trump is that attempt to take a shortcut for many people. >> thank you, bill. we are often a good start and let's do some follow-up. i want to push back from your position for each one of you. i will start with janet. janet, you know trump was a democrat. you know he donated to democrats. you know he donated to pro-choice causes. you know he has at best a mixed record on supporting planned parenthood of funding for it. he has supported lots of pro-abortion candidates, and abortion seems to be the most important question for a lot of evangelical christians. how do you reconcile that with a

vote for donald trump and you trust announced it was absolutely i can trust and no. my mind comes to the quote from -- she said money is like manure you spread it around say get things to go the that's exactly don't trump is done, he's given to pro-abortion, pro-life, democrats, conservatives. e-business been. decanters opened up way and that is part of the art of the deal. you said this was basically a family discussion. into this is what we call an ecclesiastical cover session. they could probably be conducted with all the halls of our churches, not in front of the c-span cameras. but as long as you're watching will have this discussion. what i want in a wide we didn't have this discussion for years ago. we had a man from massachusetts who was pro-abortion before his pro-life. with supporting obamacare but far more partly because this is evangelical conversation, i got my friends are members.

this isn't ecclesiastical conversation. that candidate wore underwear the felt it would protect them from harm can't believe that jesus was sentenced spirit brother played that jesus had returned already to the earth but only to the southern hemisphere you recommend upper panel yet again is advocating another mormon. ever going to an ecclesiastical conversation about evangelicals, and let's put doctrine on the table and see if it's a driving factor. >> thank you, janet. erick. erick, trump has been accused of denigrating minorities. he has been accused of undercutting the christian view of the sanctity of human life, the image of god by the way he talks about them. i think this all started on june 16 when he came down the escalator, david opening speech about what he felt concerning

mexico and people coming across the i want to read the direct quote. people who have lots of problems, they are bringing those problems. they are bringing drugs. they are bringing crime. they are rapists. and some, i assume, are good people. but i speak to border guards and they're telling us what we are getting. that is the quote. i want to emphasize this phrase, and some are good people. can you deny that that statement is true? or at least unclear. because of the tab yet, some are good people. and if that statement doesn't show that he's denigrating

minorities, there's another quote or action that you choose to justify that he is a racist or undercuts the human dignity? >> you know, i think to a degree that the hyperbole of the statement overshadowed appointed attorney get that added to take him that he wasn't drawing a blanket statement. unfortunately, it was her that way by a lot of people and oftentimes perception is more important than reality and thate perception the gatekeepers that is hostile to them. i think the bigger issue was his treatment of the chechen indiana who because of his heritage couldn't be there in a case because he was mexican. he was a nativeborn american. my heritage is swedish but i'm not swedish. he's an american. i think that in and of itself was extremely problematic the way he dealt with it. but i've got to tell you, you

and i may not be hearing some of these things but there is this group called the old right and they are. these people believe in tribalism, such as particularly the white race as a tribe in this country. and you engaged independently that the policies that benefit white nativeborn americans are the policies that trouble advocate because they have gotten that impression from the statements. i first came into contact with these people because of their fear lent hostility towards adoption in evangelical circles because christians have the greatest propensity of any group in this country to adopt outside the race and a very much like laws in this country to prohibit that. i'm very troubled by the way that they hear donald trump and think he is one of the i don't think trump is, to be clear, but they certainly hearing everything this campaign made a very bad mistake in fostering

those dog whistles for that group. >> thank you, erick. bishop jackson, trump has put forth a list of prospects for the supreme court. and right away he said, but i might add to it. i think it will point he alluded to his sister that might make a good judge. and here's the question given the donor record, given the past support of democrats record, past unevenness, at least, on the planned parenthood issue. why you think he would keep the promise was why do you think you could go without list or people like the ones on that list? is this part of the art of the

deal? is this a bait and switch tracks the seaplane? what do you think? >> well, i don't think he is playing us. i think he understands at this point. i'm not so sure at the beginning he's really got to ingratiate himself with a certain demographic. and i think he has selected the christian community and the conservative christian community to be the folks that he really wants to receive support from. so i think he will keep the promise as much as any politician will keep that promise, because they believe it's in the best interest for reelection, and that kind of thing. so what i see is a man who has been shaped in the debates and in the process, who is starting to understand these different groups other groups that have to

have with me over the long haul. and i think that's why the list was offered, in order to be specific, to tell conservatives and evangelical christians, i'm going to do some things that are helpful. >> thank you. okay, bill. trump has been accused of mocking the disabled, and i believe you used that phrase in your doctor there's a clip where he is quoting a reporter that seems to be antagonistic or at least questioning him maybe in an unfair way he thought. so we flails his arms, his speech is slurred. this report is disabled. a group called catholics for trump has put together a video, and the same arm flailing, that same slurred speech pattern of uses in the speech into talk

about a general that he doesn't like. and in the catholics for trump where there is another bit of trouble using the same wailings, arms and speech pattern for ted cruz, he is mocking ted cruz more of us. ted cruz is not physically disabled. the general is not physically disabled. what do you think of his analysis by catholics for trump? and if it matters, and do you know of any other case who and when, you know, that he is mocked someone that is disabled? >> so let's just give him the benefit of the doubt and say for a minute that he was not mocking the disability of this reporter. in fact, i think a lot of times politicians get an unfair rap because there's something that happened out of context and that becomes a rap on themselves, is

the favorite have we ever seen donald trump make fun of any of the people and had a look or how to act? let me think. weight, just about every day. that people, yes. carly fiorina, yes. hillary clinton, yes. rand paul, yes. he regularly makes fun of the ask yourself, i don't know about you but how many people in your life who are about seventh grade make fun of the other people look? i have very few people in my life did that to me is like middle school, elementary school child is behaving. and he's doing it unapologetically on the national stage. that is corrosive to our national character that we are doing the. and this is something deeply wrong about the man's character. >> thank you. i'm going to allow erick orville to answer this question, whoever wants to shoot for it. -- or bill.

most christians today still don't have a vote. in places like china and so forth. those who have been able to vote for most of the church history and even today don't get to vote for god and country candidates. candidates that might be good advertising for the church or christianity. they are voting between a candidate that's controlled by an oligarchy are voting for a candidate whose controlled by a drug lord, or choosing between that and a candidate controlled by the military or something corrupt. but christians are where they are, living there and did you cast votes. we have been privileged to vote in the past the candidates we identified with. they were sort of heroes without a with god and country type candidates. do you see a distinction between this idea that voting for

supporting a candidate embarrasses the republican party for and nurses the church was a that testimony, and just this decision you have to make as most christians throughout history that to make and in other countries have had to make between just two choices, and you just got to be the best you can do and it seems that trump is the of those dimensions of the either one of you want that? >> i've been actually asked this question a lot in various forms, and i was the back to the awful toll. we did right in romans government dashed as peter said we are to pray for the emperor. we are to pray to the president obama as emperor. paul was a roman citizen who by right of citizenship we know from historic record even outside the bible was allowed to vote in the assembly's and forums, in jerusalem.

we know that paul could exercise his vote if you wanted to as a roman citizen. backing of the once wrote about it. we don't have to vote between the lesser of two evils. if you want to, do it but paul also said don't call someone not matters of the gospel to violate the conscience. i don't think we should be compelled each other to violate our consciences to vote or not vote. that's what i'm not going to tell anybody don't vote. what we don't have to. yes, voting is a right as an american citizen but i have a higher obligation to advance the kingdom of god. when to come in conflict i've got to go with advancing the kingdom of god. >> janet ordered to be the one of you could take this. picking up on what he said about the lesser of two evils, sometimes there's visit you that a candidate is good or a candidate is evil. at decision is good or a decision is evil. if you studied ethics, there's a

whole feel about this, and various schools of thoughts about this but we heard it was candidates further, like jfk and roosevelt and jefferson, some of the people that we say these are good, these are heroes, these are founding fathers. we have statutes in the city, but they were not just good. they were also good and evil. some candidates are mostly good with some people. some are mostly people with some good thoughts the next. we are in a fallen world and thinking about the difference between the greater good, decide what is the greater good and what is the lesser of two evils? to either one of you want to speak to that? does that make sense to? >> i'll say this at this juncture i think checks and balances in our system, we know comes from a biblical perspective and understanding.

in because we've got people with mixed motives and issues, that they themselves may not even understand, we do have a system of balancing out the different powers of the three branches of government. we will never have a 100% pure president but in the system i think it would be terrible if we don't exercise our right to vote and commit to doing our best to grapple with these issues. that's my simple answer. >> bill, i think your district i was in a meeting and a congressman said, i do not trust the donald trump to always do the right thing. on all of our issues all the time. then he said i do trust hillary

clinton to do the wrong thing on the issues all the time. how do you process that state and? >> that's why come back to the lesser of two evil arguments being inadequate and want to bring it again there is another candidate, evan mcmullen who i'm voting for. by the way i don't, i disagree stronger i don't vote based on faith. i do vote based on virtue and character. i know many non-christians have wonderful character anti-semitic christian to do for the character. maybe you don't want in the same circles as i do last night i care a lot about the virtues but i'm not looking for a pastor in chief. i'm looking for a commander-in-chief. so the character issue is huge for me. i live in for jim and i will be voting for evan mcmullen. let's just say i didn't. let's say that really th the ony two and there's a such thing as a write-in. even then there comes a time

where i'm being put into an impossible choice, and it's one which i think there's a more virtuous decision in that situation. it because it gives a much higher standard for our republican nominee than i do for a liberal nominee. i care more about who we put forward and then we support. so that's why i don't go by that reasoning. >> this is a different kind of question. i want everyone to end and then going to start with janet. assuming your candidate wins in november, what is the one likely consequence or result that most concerns you? >> that most concerns me? well -- >> if trump wins. what doubt you might have spilled that christians will not be praying for him and fasting for them a record pace of politics if we were to honor the king. so that would be something that i would encourage my listeners to do.

we are to pray for those in a 40 because we are the beneficiaries when that happens. i would be doing that on the the good basis. i'm struggling with enough. i'm so good at math and broadcasting. if you vote for evan or you don't vote at all, you have voted for hillary clinton. it's now. absolutely math. you may have the military i feel good and i feel righteous and i advance the kingdom of god without you have done none of that. you haven't been pragmatic you haven't been political and haven't done what was right by seeking the welfare of the city. i would have a problem with it. there's a name that's been up since you that's not been brought up with this plan. mike pence. he represents everything we evangelicals love and support. my husband worked diligently with him. the character, the department, the record on capitol hill, and he is in every sense one

heartbeat away. i don't know what the future holds the i just know who holds the future and i know how pathetic is absolutely undeniable a person who proclaimed relationship with jesus christ. >> erick or bill come we are coming close to the into we have to be quick but she's raise an important point. some people say we can't trust him with the list come is making lots of promises, this could be bait and switch. actually he has made now one executive decision and only one. which is the vice president. you cannot really imagine any of the other 17 to 16 candidates picking someone better than mike pence. is the perfect. there was one big blob of people criticized for him in indiana, but it's at least remarkable. i would say secondly, this isn't just about the candidates. it's about the party platforms in the republican platform has

never been more conservative. the democrat platform has never been more liberal or what do you think about those two facts, either one of you? >> on mike pence i worked in the white house. the vice president has precise as much power as the president allows him or her to have. and otherwise you can liken him to a position, essentially you just attend funerals around the world. and so i have no confidence in that. those donald trump had a reputation as a man who likes to surround himself with people who challenge his authority and likes to hear from dissenting opinions? no. quite the opposite. i don't have any confidence that mike pence, a good man, will be able to have an influence on donald trump. >> that's good. let's do this we'll have about

five minutes but if you have a closing comment we will store data with erick and worker within the closing thought, maybe a minute, minute and a half. >> two thoughts. one is like janet siemaszko went to law school. god help me in math. but if there are a million voters in one decides not to vote for hillary clinton or donald trump, there are now 999,999 voters. instead of either candidate meeting 5001 vote to get a majority, they only need 500,000 votes to get a majority. if i'm not voting for trump, therefore i'm helping hillary, i am not helping hillary so, therefore, i'm voting for trumpet i would disagree the math argument works but it takes one voter out of the boat poker i will be voting for peyton manning, someone i can be proud of to become president. my greatest fear if he would to be elected, he would have a back

gate still. if we take trump and his work, taken at his word that he gave donations to all sides because he's a businessman come if we take him at his word that is going to avoid these judges, if we take them as was going to do all these things, they would be taken at his word that he was quite happy to have these affairs with married women and not ask for forgiveness to when he be taken at his word it would like to have sex with this thought she was some also thought of the need to taken at his word that he was okay by me for bankruptcy of others carry the debt for him so he got off scot-free and didn't ask for forgiveness. if you want to go for him fine but i think as christians we harm eyewitness to advocate for them it is a man is elected the secret service codename for him will be omaha, just for the record. i have two issues. number one, the process. the process said there was something process the people spoke. of the pundits, not the c-3.

the people are. there was one instant and his name would donald trump it if we believe in republican believe in the process whether we like the outcome or not i think we are obligated to support the process but i'm far more concerned about the church. i've never seen such invite my life to it is an embarrassment to the cost of christ. i am very concerned once this election is dust in the annals of history we will wonder whether or not as you said before we will be able to unite arms to move forward for the death of the king of jesus christ or hold out against our brother because they didn't vote the way we thought they should vote or we've done some really bad, extract was something of scripture that in no way, shape, or form exist in the first was the i would end with this. it's an old saying we're not quite sure who it can be subscribed it is perfect at the 21st century. essential unity, and nonessentials liberty in all things cherished. >> very good. build?

>> i don't want to get into the self-fulfilling prophecy which is a binary choice. by the way, the framers never assumed as such and they didn't have janet's confidence in the majority which is why did so many checks on the role of a to implement something they called the electoral college. in terms of process unworkable within the constitutional framework put out why the founders what i'm voting for evan mcmullen. the math can work if we make it work. i think we need to take seriously trump's words, if we need to stop hoping that he's just a huckster and a sharp edges laying all the time. i think there are words we need to look for and listen to what he says then again and again and believe him. >> i'm excited about this election for this reason. i believe that the only healing balm possible for america is going to come forth from the

church, if she rises up and stand in the gap, praise, votes and exercises for liberties. i believe that there is a redefinition going on, time for a tremendous change and that ultimately god is allowing us to see some of our biggest cultural flaws through the flaws of the candidates. so i'm hopeful that god is not through with america yet. i believe the church needs to be more unified. at an anxious to see who ultimately wins, and the gospel will be preached no matter who is elected. and i'm excited though about the future. >> folks, let's think erik erickson, janet parshall, bishop harry jackson and bill wichterman.

[applause] >> i'm gary johnson to i want to thank you for watching on c-span2, and to remind you that christians vote. it's just one of the things we do. very good. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> our cspan.org website has this and many more press conference events.

the website is cspan.work. first lady michelle obama campaign for hillary clinton today in fairfax, virginia. live coverage starts at three pm eastern on eastern on our companion network cspan. santa barbara televisions station are reporting that outside in the 24th congressional district the latest data shows that more than $1.6 million has been spent on california's race between the democrat and republican candidate. that race ranks six between hotly contested races in other states. democrats want to hold onto that seat being vacated by the current congresswoman. here is more on that race. >> how a congressional race in santa barbara california became one of the most expensive in the country.

thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you for having me. this is an open seat, democratic congresswoman is retiring, tells that the two candidates. >> the democrat is a supervisor in santa barbara county. he was chief of staff before that and has been making his way up through politics for 20 years now. he has the backing of lois capps as well as nancy pelosi and the whole them democratic establishment. justin for reed is a 28-year-old, his parents own a medical devices company in santa barbara and after graduating from ucla, he worked for congressman ed whitfield of kentucky before he moved back to the district. now he's making his second run

for congress but he ran in 2014 but did not make it out of the primary. >> as you said an expensive race. when all is said and done how much will be spent by the candidates in outside money? >> right now it is $5.5 million. 1.5 million and outside spending. i expect that to go up. i'd don't know how much it will go up but considering it such a cheap market area compared to l.a. and the bay area you could see more money come in. it is going to get more expensive. here are some of the ads. >> when government can't agree,

they shut down and keep their salaries. he disagrees. he stood with them and gave up part of his salary as county supervisor. >> everybody was trying to make ends meet. i was thought it was important to do the same thing we were asking our employees to do. i believe that's what leadership is all about. >> justin for reed, a third-generation rancher, born and raised right here on the central coast. justin went to washington long enough to realize the place desperately needs fresh ideas. someone unstoppable. choose fresh, choose justin for reed. >> just two of the many ads in california's north congressional district.

joining us on the phone is heavier is following this tory for the l.a. times. a very different approach, a generational approach between the younger republican candidate and the older more seasoned nominee. >> you couldn't get to more difficult candidates in that area. justin is only 28 years old. his experiences he was a staffer for congressman out to kentucky for year. the other has spent 20 years in local politics. he is fairly well-known for his fundraising apparatus. he raises a lot of money not only for this race but county supervisor as well. he really has the backing of most of the powerful democrats,

nancy pelosi and lois his daughter is backing him. he has been hit with a lot of attacks for being a career politician. justin doesn't really have much of a career in politics so he gets to come at it from the angle of i'm young, i'm a new kind of republican and really run against the dysfunction in congress. >> let's talk about the demographics of this district? north of l.a., the two large cities in california 24, who does it paper? >> it's an interesting district because for a long time, the district kind of cut a thin slice of the coast down to

malibu. now it goes further inland. you start off on the coast with liberal cities like santa barbara and you go more inland and you get into the country club republican crowd. you get more farmers, ranchers and agricultural economy. that is produced more republicans. the former lieutenant governor came out of santa monica. here's a republican. it's interesting in that sense, but it does have a democratic advantage among the registered voters. they have a 60-point lead over republicans. being a presidential year, that alone should favor the more experienced candidates. >> a race that's becoming one of the most expensive in the country. thank you for joining us.

his work is available online at l.a. times.com. thank thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some of our programs this weekend. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, book tv talks with the new librarian of congress. she is the first woman in african-american to hold the position. then "after words", mark thompson looks at what he calls the erosion of public language in his book enough said, what's gone wrong with the language of politics which examines the language in politics. he is interviewed by arianna huffington, founder of the having them post. >> tell us firstly, policy has changed in many ways. the natural shape of policy,

based on class and ideology has become more disruptive and you can feel the mainstream parties under pressure. >> sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern air live with the rockland book festival. it features national literary stars and authors including topics on economics with mr. hill, politics with sarah jaffe, fred kaplan on digital privately, ralph nader looks at political parties and a lection's. military and war with molly crabapple. go to booktv.org for the complete schedule. >> newly appointed border patrol chief mark morgan testifies

about checkpoints, national security and resources that are needed by the agency. >> this hearing will come to order. the subcommittee is meeting today to examine the defense and depth strategy in its effect on local communities. directly nice myself for an opening statement. first i would like to thank chief mark morgan like your predecessors, i am sure you will be spending frequent visits to our subcommittee as we address very important questions related to border security. what does a secure border look like? one of the tools and strategies to achieve and how do we measure success or failure?

today i want to focus on the second question, and aspect of the strategy known as the sense and depth. the unintended consequences imposed on border community and residents that live along the border including many in my constituents. in early 1990 the border control and service were outmatched in illegal activity between and at the port of entry. despite having a smaller border patrol at the time, agents apprehended millions of people. border patrol's response to this activity in el paso and san diego led to operations hold the line and gatekeeper that surged resources to the border in those major urban areas. in the short term, its bmi tide of illicit activity, however it had the unintended effect of pushing the illicit activity away from urban areas and into the remote rule areas of the border. by design, the shipping cartel activity in the more rugged train gave the border patrol the advantage of time to target the contraband. they routinely articulated the

strategies effectiveness. in urban areas they had a mere second two-minute to intercept the illegal activity. in rural areas they had anywhere from hours to days to interject the political activity. it has had profound ramifications like my district in arizona. on a routine basis our residents are exposed to this illicit activity that crosses the border, trespasses their land and destroys their property and put their lives at work. small businesses and tourism suffer by strategy that i believe needs to be re-examined. to be clear, i'm i'm not asking agents to link arms across the border 2000 miles south, shoulder to shoulder. what i am asking for is as we focus our resources and manpower more at the line of scrimmage,

not five, ten, 100 miles inland. we should anticipate, deter and stop most illicit activity before it enters our communities using the overwhelming majority of agents and technology as close to the line has train axis and agency will allow. i've spent countless hours at the border with ranchers, border residents in the border patrol. in many instances i have observed mild long stretches of the border with little or no agent activity patrolling the road near the fence. i've also witnessed whole sections of fence cut out allowing vehicles to come across the border before being detected. presence on the border matters. it serves as a deterrent and a rapid response to inevitable breaches. i am mindful that geography has an effect of where we apprehend individuals and sees narcotics but we cannot wait for these actors to be caught at the time and place of our choosing.

instead we have to take the fight to them. in tucson, 48% 48% of the total number of apprehensions took place more than 5 miles from the physical border. compare that with yuma, or grand valley in texas were more than 84% of percent of illicit crossings are apprehended in the first 5 miles. let's be clear, for citizens who live along the border, 5 miles is miles is like an eternity. interior checkpoints are part of the layered approach to security and create challenges for the men and women i was sent here to represent. the border patrol uses a mix of permanent and tactical checkpoints among major routes in and out of the border. consistent with its strategy, checkpoints are designed to push the traffic around the checkpoint into areas where the

border patrol has a better chance of interdiction. when checkpoints are really done is introduce the inconvenience, hassle and threat of the way of life for law-abiding american citizens who live near these areas. the border patrol has little to show for their use. very few apprehensions take place at these checkpoints and to add insult to injury, these checkpoints are closed when it rains to prevent traffic accidents. all they have to do is wait for the weather to change to bypass the slayer. in 2014 the university of arizona conducted an in-depth study concerning the effect points and the impact on local communities. the report makes a series of recommendation and closely tracks the impact of checkpoints on communities. today, i don't think the border patrol has followed or implemented the recommendations and i look forward to talking about that today. we do have a university of arizona representative on the panel. an approach sounds good in theory but there are real-world negative impacts for the american citizens who live at or near the border. i look forward to hearing from the chief and witnesses on the second panel to discuss looking

at a better approach. the chair recognizes mr. baylor for any statement he may have. >> thank you. i don't have a lot more to add. i want to welcome chief morgan to this hearing today and congratulate you on your appointment. my perspective on your agency in these checkpoints comes from having crossed the checkpoint virtually all of my life. when i was a young lawyer, i traveled between corpus christi almost weekly and i used to get really frustrated having to go through the checkpoint because tamia didn't make didn't make sense that i as an american citizen, born in brownsville would have to be asked whether or not i was a citizen two hours north, however, my father was a federal judge of the jurisdiction over the area and when i would often voice my frustration he would remind me

of the volume of apprehension that he would witness, so over time it softened my reaction but your agency is very much a part of life across the us-mexico border and certainly for those of us in south texas. over the course of the last year i can tell you, i have talked to your agents on an official basis sometimes but more often on an unofficial basis because they live all around us as part of our social fabric and i can tell you you have some challenges ahead because over the course of the last year, there is hardly an agent that i have run into, many who have been part of the agency for many years who have expressed a level of dissatisfaction in dealing with

a lot of low morale with many of the people who work for the agency. i look forward to working with you as we move forward and with the rest of the committee to see what we can do about improving morale for the agents on the ground and doing what we can to make your agency as effective as possible. i yield the rest of my time. >> a reminder that opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are joined by two panels of witnesses to discuss this important topic. we have mr. mark morgan who is chief of the united states border patrol. a position he assumed earlier this year. before entering border patrol he served in the federal bureau of investigation, the los angeles police department and the u.s. marines. while at the fbi he served as a

special agent in charge of el paso division and inspection division. his full written statement will appear in the record and he is now recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, thank you for holding this important hearing today. this is a proud moment for me. this is the first appearance at a congressional hearing representing the dedicated and talented men and women of the united states border patrol. during my first two months here is chief, i have had the privilege to meet thousands of agents, staff and trainees along the borders and at headquarters here in washington. i can't think of a better way for me to have started my tenure than to get out in the fields, to listen, learn and observe.

it has exceeded my expectations. all of these interactions, two critical facts have been crystal clear to me. one i still have a lot to learn and to, the men and women of the united states border patrol have one of the toughest jobs in federal law enforcement. the complex challenges we face in the 21st century law enforcement are difficult than i have seen in 30 years of my career. the threat environment is constantly evolving in this demand that we do the same, this was never more evident than my assignment at the fbi agent in charge. [inaudible] the unique challenge along the southwest border are unparallel. it was there that i first learned about the vast and challenging mission and just how critical it is to our nation security. i was astonished at the magnitude of the border control mission and i was equally impressed with the men and women serving honorably to carry out that complex, constantly evolving mission. i can tell you from my personal experience they are hard-working, dedicated to this

mission and their country and have and continue to make personal sacrifices to protect this great nation. i stand before you honor to privilege to be part of this team. the numbers we often hear associated with the border patrol are those associated with those attempting to illegally enter. i would like to share some other numbers that we don't often share about. i have learned that the united states border patrol agents were among the most assaulted personnel in the country. there have been 7542 assaults against agent since 2006. there have been 30 agents that have died in the line of duty since 2003. the recent passing of border patrol agent manual alvarez serves as a vivid reminder of the challenging and unique

environment border patrol agents are asked to experience. another number which often gets little mention is how often border patrol agents put themselves in harms way to provide emergency medical care and assistance to those in need to include those who are trying to illegally enter the united states. every year the border patrol is involved in the rescue of thousands of victims of human smuggling and individuals attempting to cross the united states. more than 3700 this fiscal year alone. in july, the laredo agent jumped into the rio grande to save for victims that were surely to drown. this past july, tucson agents agents risk their own lives to rescue 15 individuals that were attempting to illegally enter the united states when they found themselves trapped in an open pit mine in green valley

arizona. just a few weeks ago, the buffalo sector border patrol marine units made landfall on the canadian shore in the middle of night after observing the house was on fire. they made landfall and alerted the family and escorted them to safety as the home became engulfed in flames. today's hearing, border patrol agents in the strategic use of checkpoints is discussed. i think it does exist that this activity can occur away from them immediate border. it includes a threat -based, intelligence driven, multifaceted approach such as checkpoints and foreign operating bases that are located on known routes from the border in an effort to maximize our resources and prevent a single point of failure. for example, just a few weeks ago a driver attempted to flee the grand valley checkpoint area the driver was apprehended and

seven people, illegal immigrants were locked in the vehicle of the trunk with no means of escape. along with sophisticated technology, enhanced infrastructure, personnel and partnerships, the use of checkpoint operations are current component of the border control laid a strategy to protect this country's national security and ensure the safety of the public they are here to serve. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to your questions and dialogue concerning where as an agency we can get better at what we do. >> thank you chief morgan, i now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. as a relatively new chief of border patrol and one that wasn't an agent first, you mentioned that you have taken time toward the different sectors and you are taking a fresh look as to the mission that they have, the challenges and so based on that and the topic here, checkpoints is one element of it but really were

looking at the full defense in depth strategy. what did you learn about the strategy and do you agree that this should continue to be the approach that we take, especially in rural community. >> yes, ma'am, i think i first learned that i will stop referring to it as a depth and defense strategy. i think there has been a perception that means we are ceding territory. i don't think that's what i'm seeing. i think what i'm seeing, and i still have a lot to learn, i'm still taking a hard look at this and asking a lot of question, i think what i'm observing is that we are trying to come up with a strategy that prevents us from having a single point of failure. that really is my concern. there are lots of different ways that may be that can be achieved and we need to take a look at

that and continue to grow. i think the border patrol is going in the right direction being that threat -based intelligence organization that supported with infrastructure and personnel but also i think part of that strategy, we know that regardless as we continue to grow in that approach which is supported by infrastructure, technology technology and people, things are still getting across. that's what i saw and that's what i'm learning. we're getting wetter but were not where we need to be what we are getting better. things are getting across. as i'm looking at that, what do we do to prevent the things that you get crossed and do get by us ? what strategy gives us a second look at that to eliminate that single point of failure. i think that's what i'm seeing

with respect to the strategy. >> during your time and your discussion in your visits, were you able to see or agree that again, if you see the vast majority of the tucson area apprehensions taking place 5 miles north of the border, the illicit activity does have some serious repercussion to communities and residents. >> yes, ma'am, absolutely agree. i've been to del rio and other areas and set with the ranchers. i've had dinner with the local ranchers. it's a great barbecue. i sat and talk with them and the elements that you mentioned in your comments are exactly what they are saying as well. i think they are absolutely legitimate in everything that they say. if i was a rancher and i hear that they talk about the things they do from what others may see as a small gate left open, it's

not small to a rancher. cattle can get out and it can have devastating impacts. they have seen people who have passed on their property. their property is getting broken into. things are getting stolen. it is absolutely a serious issue and i can say, my to her and being on the field, along the southwest border, i have not met a border patrol agent yet that doesn't understand that and take that equally as serious. >> great, thank you. part of your assessment, do you think we have enough agents to secure the border? my understanding is we are below 20000 nationwide and i guess the other question related to strategy is of the agents that you have, are you taking a look look at where they are assigned? we hear a lot from the agents themselves about those being detailed away and not and off are mustering to be out

patrolling on a daily basis. those percentages as we've done different visits in talking with people seem to be a little bit lopsided as far as those that are out in the field versus those in other assignments. are you looking at that what have you learned from the number of agents and where they're actually assigned? >> yes, ma'am, i think all elements you just said i am taking a look at on equivalent unequivocally across the board. first, do we have enough? my first answer is i don't know yet when it comes to the personnel because i think we have to do what you said which is take a look at the resource allocation and where they at. i think also it's a layered approach. i think to answer that question honestly it's a little premature for me to be able to do that and have that confidence before i give you those numbers because again part of that is increasing our ability to identify and understand the threat and have the situational awareness to continue to grow and be

intelligence driven and focused our operation toward that threat. it's also a combination of infrastructure and technology through the use it could impact the need for a number of agents. i'm taking a look at that. i think you hit the other element right on the head. that is, are are the agents where they need to be? i don't know. i'm taking a look at that. i'm asking this question. if you look at the history, as you mention as well, if you look at the history of the border patrol resources had to be shifted as the threat shifted. i think that is hard for an organization that is static in nature meaning people have to move and buy homes, etc. but cetera but also be an agile and mobile enough to be constant and have that ability to go where the evolving threat is. we will take a look at that. we have a mobile response team. some sectors may see some agents leave. i don't no, we may see agents leave the tucson sector but they may be going to rgb where

they're just getting hammered with the inflow and influx of folks crossing. we have to take a look at that. absolutely, we are taking a hard look at that. >> thank you. one more quick question on the checkpoint and i will get another round because i want to go deeper into it. we have these permanent checkpoints on most roads in arizona and across the rest of the border. look, if you are a hardened cartel operative and you drive through a known border patrol checkpoint, you should get the darwin award. as i've talked to agents in your predecessor, you are picking up the low-level criminals who they don't know any better or don't have good intel and think i'll get through, but not the serious cartels. you intend that the serious cartel are going to go around the checkpoint and that pushes

them in our communities want to make sure we get this discussion out in the first panel. then we talk about agents who say they don't have enough manning to go out and patrol the walkaround. this is impacting if the agents are at the checkpoint but not out there standing out for those going around it, then you are not intercepting them yet there being a public safety threat to the communities that are around the checkpoint. can you talk a little bit about that checkpoint strategy, the fact that they are fixed versus roaming, they they close down when rain comes so the bad guys just line up during monsoon season, what's your assessment of how we can improve partake of fresh look at these checkpoints? >> absolutely we should take a look at this. 100%. i am and we are looking for every opportunity we can improve. i think that's how great

organizations get better. i think the way we get better is to challenge ourselves and accept ourselves if what were doing is effective and can we get better. more specific, we have to do a little more work to provide you a solid answer on whether cartels are using checkpoint. >> and tell you you 20 years in the fbi as well as what i've seen here is serious drug cartels do use lower levels for transportation. i think last year's checkpoints, around 75 were on track to do that. they are getting serious.

they are just changing their ttp's. the other other part with respect to pushing around the community, i have seen that there is some truth to that. what i'm seeing as part of that strategy is they have roaming controls around the checkpoint for that. they also can set up intermediate or temporary checkpoints as well to try to stop the flow of people going around. i do think they have a strategy to try to address that holistically. how effective is that, i still need to get more data on that. >> okay, i'll come back around but i will tell you they don't have the manning to do the roaming patrols at some checkpoints in arizona. where is it going and do you have the manning to address those issues and the impact again on the private property and the local community when the bad guys are going around. i'm going to go ahead and yield to my ranking member for opening questions.

>> are you making the distinction between the effectiveness of the checkpoints in terms of catching people versus catching narcotics? >> i'm not sure what you mean by making a difference? i guess. >> i guess what i'm curious about is we see statistics when we cross these checkpoints in terms of pounds of cocaine that has been detected in so much marijuana, i'm guess i'm trying to get what your sense of how effective the checkpoints are with respect to apprehension of narcotics versus apprehension of people. >> i think at this point, i am seeing the checkpoints that are an effective part of the

strategy to prevent us from having a single point of failure. i am seeing that. i'm not saying that there's not alternatives that we should look at or we could look at as part of the strategy to prevent us from having a single point of failure. currently there is a structure right now where the statistics are showing that they are effective at the immigration enforcement of what their primary responsibility is. last year, checkpoints across the southwest border was about 8000. this year i think we are on track for that same number as well. on its face, they appear to be effective as that part of the strategy to prevent us from having a single point of failure. now, in addition to that, yes i would categorize it as very successful with respect to drug seizures. i think they are also being

somewhat successful in catching people, criminals that have outstanding warrants, state, federal warrants or heinous crimes and those who have been convicted of violent crimes in the past. that is also happening at the checkpoints as well. >> i didn't mean to be critical, i was just trying to get your assessment of the effectiveness of the checkpoint in regard to those tasks that the agency has at the checkpoint. >> yes, sir, so i think right now, i would say they appear to be effective, especially with the resources that are actually dedicated to the checkpoints, there's a very small amount of the border patrol resources that are dedicated to checkpoints overall and i would say the statistics that are being produced by those checkpoints, i would say at this point knowing what i know now, i would categorize them as being

successful. >> back on the issue of morale, just to give you an idea of how entrenched the border patrol has been in south texas and in my life there, your your agency served as pallbearers at my father's funeral. when i talked to agents, it happened last weekend at a golf tournament, by coincidence i ran into two agents who came up to me and they had the same story, how deeply things had changed from their perspective in the border patrol and not for the good, what i found and this is not just a segment on the border patrol or homeland security, but with respect to federal agencies in general and the disconnect between the offices up here in

washington d.c. and what's going on on the ground, and i guess, i know you just started and i know the assessments you have made are your initial assessments, but what can you tell us about with where you're headed with respect to improving morale and for that matter, these conclusions that i've come to aren't based on statistics that i fred in these notebooks that were handed, these are real-life conversations that i have with the people who work for you and some so i'm curious, are you getting the same sense i am or is it different? >> first of all i would absolutely love to maybe do an off-line and get more in-depth of what what you're actually hearing from the line agents because i think as the chief of border patrol, that's exactly what i need to hear. if i'm in a look at issues and

be able to make the impact i need, i go up there and in my stump speech, one of my key role is to be the relentless advocate. i think part of being that advocate is understanding what they are feeling each and every day. that's one of the main reasons why on day 3i decided i was going to go out to the field and visit every single sector, all 27 sectors and i'm not going to stop until i complete it. since i've been out there, i have stood in front of mustards of 300 talk to mechanics in the garage and listen to them and so i am hearing issues about morale morale is not where it needs to be, but there's a lot of reasons for that and it's very complicated. i can say that the fed survey that went out is that it really kind of told us and identified that there are some morale issues and challenges but that's only one point of context and so

what the border patrol did is they commissioned an outside entity to come in and look at the basic information without survey and they went to 13 sectors and talked over 900 personnel on the border patrol chief sector all the way down to the mechanic and from that they came up with these basic eight core areas and we brought back additional people to really get to the root of the core issues. the plan is, my plan is to really do some targeted teams on those issues to really try to address those issues and improve morale. those are specific things but i think there's also some bigger things we need to take a look at. i think we've mentioned some of those as well, and that's the second thing that i tell them, it's part of my job that as the chief, to get them the resource in the training and the tools they need to do their job effectively and safely. i think that goes to the heart

of the hearing, is our strategy right, are the things that we are using correct? we need to take a look at that. we do. everything. i'm not accepting anything that i see as it's the right thing. i'm not doing that. i am asking questions and i am asking for explanations, why why are we doing this, is this the right thing. are there attorney lives to prevent us from having a single point of failure or is checkpoints the only thing we can do? i think that's important going forward. >> i look forward to working with you on that issue and many others. what i can tell you, i'm sure the surveys are nice and everything but between mr. hurd and congressman sally and mr. higgins who represents the northern border and those of us who interact with your agency every day, not to mention the people we have working for us back in our offices, i was at my office back in the district two

weeks ago and agents were coming in. our offices have a significant degree of interaction with the people who work for your agency and use us as a tool because i think we can help bridge some of these gaps given our interaction with your agency in your agents on the ground day today. you for being here. >> yes, sir, i would absolutely like to take advantage of that. >> thank you. we now recognize mr. duncan from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you for this hearing. i enjoyed working with your predecessor chief fisher and when i was a little more engaged with oversight of management efficiency subcommittee -- i've been on this committee for six years in this topic never goes away. you have a challenge ahead of you because of the bureaucracy that you work for.

i'm glad you are asking the questions and i hope can make those changes as you seek answers and i look forward to working with you. i think you'll find a willing congress and committee to help you. it's not just the border states and their delegations that are interested in immigration issues aired immigration issues affect everyone and drug issues and national security issues affect everyone even in south carolina. coming on the heels of 911, 15 years later a lot of reflection over what happened the mistakes made. we've done a lot of radio interviews and i've told folks that i don't know we are any safer today by combining all these agencies under dhs and our border is still unsecure. i say that in that we still have illegals and contraband and drugs and elicit activity happening that has come across our border. that's no fault of yours and no fault of your personnel.

i have plied you and support you and i want to keep working with you but the facts of the facts that we have illegals coming in this country and we have another element coming into this country illegally walking across our border and that's the dhs term of otm other than mexicans. they're not just the hispanic origin folks that are coming in taking the jobs and hospitality, you name it. these are people who we really don't know their intent because apprehension rates for folks who have crossed our border are speculative. i say that and jay johnson has said we take the number that we catch and then we kind of extrapolate that and figure out how many we are not catching. that's alarming when you really think about that. so, do you know the percentages of otm's that are apprehended on the border? these are people from africa to the middle east, asia, what is that percentage based on your knowledge? >> yes, sir, i don't know that

exact percentage of otm. >> okay no problem. >> america just needs to know that there are people crossing our border that aren't just from latino, latin dissent, guatemala, coming guatemala, coming to take jobs or bring their children here or whatnot. there are folks that have traveled great distances, often often time using fake passports and a lot of money, traveling through the region, transitioning through latin america and coming into this country. some have goals of providing for their family. i don't discount that. but i believe some have nefarious goals. on the hill country in of 911 i'm going to be very cognizant of that. in 2006 they passed the secure fence act. i wasn't here. i applauded it as a state legislator but then they failed to appropriate the dollars to complete the job. i don't know how many miles have been complete in that. i believe in more fencing, i

believe it works because i believe there are areas, i know there are areas you can't fence, but what it does is it puts the bad element into quarters that makes your personnel more effective. i see it as a force multiplier. we all know that a taller fence just means a higher latter aura higher latter and elements are going to cross over that fence. that's where electronic surveillance and other force multipliers actually come in. i appreciate that. if you go and look on my facebook page, there is a video in san diego. san diego knew it was the most conservative news force but they were talking about the fact that people were coming into this country apprehended by you guys and let go. they are claiming asylum. it also says this isn't a policy that is bottom-up, this is from the very top guy sitting down here at pennsylvania avenue

saying let them go. i will tell you, in south carolina were not very happy about that. we are happy about folks who have crossed our borders, we are a sovereign nation and there let go. i don't blame you for that. these are problems we have to work on together. i'm acknowledging that and offering help to work on it together as congress and we've been told in six years that i've been here by folks that work with an dhs that we have operational control of the border. i can't get a good definition of what that operational control means, but i would ask the chief , in your opinion, what does does operational control mean and have we achieved operational control for our southern borders? >> yes, sir, so i will start with the latter. operational control. two months in, i am taking a

look. i am not sure operational control is the right way to look at this. i am questioning that term, to be able to provide everyone that should with that definition. i think i go back to the strategy of being threat-based, intelligence driven intelligence driven and operative focused supported by technology and personnel. that is the framework. i think the goal is that we are striving to have confidence levels through our situational awareness so i'm asking folks, what are your competence levels from zone to zone within a station within a sector, throughout an entire 6000 plus? i pulled a little bit about my fbi experience as we went

through the aftermath of 9/11 and trying to figure out and ask yourself the same question. i want to be able to get to a sector chief and say what are your confidence levels with respect to the situational awareness that you have in your sector. tell me about that. how did you get that? talk to me about your threats, talk to me about the intelligence process, talk to me about your partnerships and your use of infrastructure technology and personnel that you used to get to that. we need to have a defined set of matrix and factors that we all go in to a sector chief being able to determine their confidence level. based on that, we allocate those resources. i think that's the direction that we need to go, but i'm asking those questions. again again i would say i'm not sure operational control, one of the reasons i'm not sure operational control is the right frame is because the ttp change too quickly. again, as you mentioned in your

opening comment about gatekeeper and hold the line, those are great examples of how we did all this and stuff shifted. at one moment we could say we have operational control in the area and in the next and it will change. if we have that process better describes, having situational awareness, i think that will position us better to do what we need to do. i would like to talk a little bit and respond to what you mentioned about people coming here and being allowed to then come to the united states. i think that is also something we need to talk about and take a look at. when we talk about resources, specifically manpower, what i see that were being asked to do, and please don't get me wrong, we will do whatever were asked to do, the political decisions of the policy of the united states of government, that's not our role to get involved in. what we are being asked to do right now, i think you can

phrase it a little bit as a humanitarian issue. for example, the unaccompanied children that are coming across, i stood in the rio grande valley on one of the roads were a smuggler had told some children once they made landfall to go to the road until you came in contact with the border patrol agent. i was there and i watched that and i watched a little six-year-old girl holding the hands of her 11-year-old brother and they had made the trek from honduras. personally, i wanted to take that little girl home with me. i did. that's something that will probably stick with me my entire life. as the chief united states border patrol which i think we have a national security in this country, we have a law enforcement threaten this country, i think when i look at that six-year-old she's not a security threat or law enforcement threat.

with respect to what i see in my job as border patrol, but i'm taking a lot of resources, a lot of resources dedicated to what i would say is a humanitarian role and i'm taking them off the line i think there needs to be discussion and i'm asking questions, what are some of the alternatives we can do instead of taking agents that have been trained to have a national security mission and should be on the front line, i'm taking them off the front line a lot to process a six-year-old and an 11-year-old is part of the humanitarian issue. i think that's a challenge. >> let me finish up by saying i appreciate your position on the children. it does pull out her heartstrings and it is the right thing for america to do to try to figure this out. the issue is exacerbated by all the other things we've talked about. when you think 49% of all illegals in this country didn't come across that southerner northern border, they came with the permissions slip. america gave them permission and

we trusted them and they violated that trust by overstaying the visa and remaining in this country. that's a different division, i get that, but going back to the point, that exacerbates the problem of being able to deal with her. so visa over stays, border enforcement, dealing with the criminal element within this country, then dealing with other illegals that happen to be in this country, and their gainfully employed and that sort of thing and the children you're talking about, whether it's the unaccompanied children coming across or whether it's the children come here known as dreamers but you have got to take it in priority because it all gets so convoluted as a total immigration reform package that were not able to have an adult civil conversation about her. you mention structure, technology and personnel. i'm with you.

but if you pick them up with a ground sensor and a camera or drone and you send personnel to pick them up and there let go two hours later, we are wasting a lot of money with structure, technology and personnel. we've got to stop letting them go. with that, a great committee can hearing and i would like to bring him back when he's got a sense of an agency and is not just been here for two months and this may be for the next congress, but we ought of aberrant operational control hearing to delve into what that looks like. thank you so much. >> obsolete. on that note, we had a hearing with your previous, the acting chief where we were trying to address situational awareness. part of the the challenges we have had is how do we measure effectiveness and those numbers have shifted over the years when

we went from 2010 to measuring operational control to measuring number of apprehensions as some measure of whether you're being successful which have never understood, let me be clear. if number of apprehensions go up when you don't know what the denominator is, is is that a good thing or bad thing? we address the issue in a hearing a couple months ago. i know these are complicated issues, but i do want want to follow up on the operational control discussion. from my experience, there are two major measurements that i would be looking for is a subcommittee chair put the first is, what percentage of the southern border you have situational awareness of real-time, not change detection after the fact that real-time? if something is coming up to the international boundary and is attempting to go to the border, we actually see it real-time. whether that's a person or camera or airborne tool, what do

we actually, if it if it moves we see it. again these are complicated issues but i'm coming from a simple fighter pilot point of view of what is your situational awareness. the second question is, of those that you see what can you intercept as operational control ? if it moves you see it, second if if you see it you can get it. so then you have a sense of a denominator because you know we sought but we didn't get it so got away. that's part of the success rate impacts. when we press on this issue and some of the challenges we have with our constituents in this national dialogue is because the measurements have been shifting, they don't have a sense what level of confidence do we have situational awareness and control.

what kind of real-time situational awareness do we have ? we've got to get ourselves in parallel to a place where we can see it and do something about it whether that's foot patrol, helicopters, horse patrol, whatever it takes. it's on the southside, not on the north side or 100 miles inland pit i think those are the challenges that bring us here to where we are today. obviously if we were able to see what moves and intercept what moves is close to the border as possible, from my perspective than in time with the border patrol, if we were able to do that, not only would you be able to do the mission closer to the border as possible which will impact all the discussions will

have on the second panel, but also it impacts the humanitarian element quite frankly. not having to deal with someone out in the desert 80 miles north who is on the verge of dehydration and death because you are intercepting them at the border. all the things that are being referenced and then les would be needing to be picked up the checkpoint in theory. we have a number of narcotics coming to checkpoints but if we were able to push the line of scrimmage to the border, then last would be actually making it around the border and into the community and going into the checkpoint. does that make sense? the part of our discussion is what can we do, what resources do you need to have intelligence driven operations like you talks about, threat -based, nimble, on your feet and shifting your tactics. what we do to make sure you have the resources of policy and the manpower which is a win-win for everybody. :