tv industry and funded by your local cable and satellite provider. nearly one out of every two acres in the west is owned and controlled by the federal government. up next on c span 3, a conversation on federal land policy in western states. then a hearing on border patrol agent pay, and defense undersecretary michael vickers discusses u.s. intelligence challenges and national security. later a look at student loan debt. defense secretary chuck hagel will be on capitol hill to testify about the transfer of five taliban guantanamo detans

for the release of army sergeant bowe bergdahl. a reminder you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. in western states, the federal government owns millions of acres of land. coming up, a discussion on control of these lands in western states. we'll hear from congressman rob bishop of utah who chairs a sme on public lands. from the heritage foundation, this is an hour. >> good morning and welcome to the heritage foundation and our lewis lairman auditorium. welcome those who join us on our heritage.org website. i will ask everyone in house if you will double check the cell phones have been turn off, especially with the rain in the area and all the magical warning of flash floods going off it might be a little more descraking than usual.

we will of course post this program on the heritage home page following the presentation for everyone's future reference and our internet viewers are all welcome to send comments or questions, simply emailing speaker@heritage.org. posting our program today is rob gordon who is senior adviser for our external relations department. before joining us here in 2008, he directed several conservation organizations. from 2003 to 6, he served on committee staff for the house committee on resources. in 1989, i founded the national wilderness institute, a nonprofit conservation organization and from '97 to 2002, he served two terms as a member of the commonwealth of virginia's board of recreation

and conservation. >> thank you, john, and welcome again to the heritage foundation. we have a great panel today. and judging from many of the faces i see in the audience, we have a great audience too, so i think we'll get some excellent questions. let me start by acknowledging rachel kopec, the coalition coordinator who has worked with us to promote this event and is working with one of the speakers who is engaged with educating state officials on aspects of federal land ownership. in a few minutes, i will introduce our speakers and after they have made remarks, we'll take questions. but first i would like to offer a little bit of context for our panel, states of dependence, reducing washington's control of the western u.s. i think some comparisons regarding land areas are needed because the areas we're discussing are so vast that they

are difficult to comprehend. when rural lands not under federal control and the lands under federal control are considered together, they are greater than the nation of india. that shouldn't be really too surprising as based on ranking the u.s., we're the third after russia and canada, and according to the natural resources conservation service, as of 2003, only 5.6% of the united states was urban. so we have a huge area that is rural. now i raise this because most americans live in urban and suburban areas. partially or predominantly developed area are the rule not the exception as to what most of us see on a day-to-day basis and this certainly affects your outlook and further development

close to or within one's already developed little day-to-day world can make it seem as if everything is disappearing. i think this is a very inaccurate perception and it is something that advocates of expanding government land holdsings and imposing barriers and regulations seize upon. so let me offer labor more perspective. nonfederal rural lands total more than 1.3 billion acres, with more than half of that being range or pasture. now, these lands aren't owned by the federal government, they are subject to federal laws and regulations that have the effect of land use control in many instances, most commonly carried out through the endangered species act. in addition, to seeking more stringent controls on private land, the environmental establishment has historically sought to expand the federal

state, often arguing that doing so the only means of preventing land from being somehow wrecked. but consider this, while alabama, connecticut, georgia, maine, mississippi, new hampshire, new york, pennsylvania, south carolina, and west virginia are not among the states with the largest percentage of federal land ownership, in all of them, significantly more than 50% of the land is forested. suffice it to say there's a vast amount of land, range and forest not under federal control has not disappeared that some of the environmental community would like you to believe. further, i would argue providing, food, fiber, energy, improving the well-being of people is hardly something to be calculated as a loss, but on to the federal estate which is vast. the u.s. army corps of engineers

manages 12 million acres of public lands and waters nationwide. this is an area greater than tie boston or israel -- taiwan or israel. that may seem large to some of you. the corps of engineers is' relatively small player. the national park service controls 84 million acres of land and that's roughly equivalent to the nation of finland and requires some 28,000 employees, and that sounds pretty big, but what may surprise you is the national park service is actually the smallest of the four major land holding federal agencies. the u.s. fish and wildlife service is substantially larger with 551 national wildlife. >> referee: refuges, it is. and the u.s. u.s. fish and wildlife service employees some

9,000 people at facilities across the u.s. the forest service again is larger. it has 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands and seven national monday yumts, totaling 193 million acres that's larger than the area of chile, and the united states forest service employees some 35,000 people and finally comes the bureau of land management. it has 254 million acres and according to the cia's world fact book that puts it in position of 31 compared to the other nations on earth. it would come in just after egypt and it has some 10,000 employees. it's larger than france, spain, germany, italy, zblend england,

austria, the belgium combined. to do so the four major land holding agencies have employees that are greater than the military forces of australia. the federal estate is too large and it's time we began exploring how at least a substantial portion of these lands can be returned to the states. our first speaker today chairs a subcommittee which seems based on the number would seem a formidable task. rob bishop is currently serving his sixth term of the utah's house of representatives. he serves on the armed services committee, natural resources committee and is chairman of the house natural resources public lands and environmental regulation subcommittee. representative bishop served 16 years in the utah state

legislation you're legislature. he served two terms of the state chairman of the republican party. he's past chair of the congressional western caucus. he was also co-founder of the 10th amendment task force in the united states house of representatives. prior to engaging in politics, representative bishop spent 28 years as a high school teacher in utah focusing on american history and government. he's married and they have five children and six grandchildren and reside in brigham city. following rob will be carl graham. he is director of the sutherland institute of self-government. he came there from montana prepreer think tank and research

center. he flew the a-6-e intruder. following a tour in japan as strike operations officer for the commander, carrier group five, carl transitioned to the f 14 tom cat. he served as squad dran operations officer, and acting as the carrier air wing liaison officer to the joint task force southwest asia. carl then served as special assistant and lth legislationive liaison in omaha, nebraska. his final naval nerve was with commander spastic fleet at pearl harbor. he graduated from mt state university in 1984, earning his masters in national security affairs from the naval post and then from the naval postgraduate school in monterey, california.

he was born and raised in glasgow in montana. he and his wife decided to settle in boseman, mt. he served on the u.s. commission on civil rights montana state advisory committee. he currently resides in salt lake city. please well congressman bishop. [ applause ] . >> thank you. i appreciate that introduction. it's always good to be here. if the fish and wildlife is the size of the ukraine, is that with or without crimea? [ laughter ] >> look, i want to tell you, words have meanings and those meanings become significant. i was walking to work one day wearing a tan three-piece suit and out of one of the apartments came a teenager. i know he's a teenager because he wasn't wearing shoes and he had a cell phone in his ear and he was walking to the car and as i passed him he said that suit

is so fly, and as i walked past him, i went, i was not sure whether i had been complimented or insulted. first, i checked my zipper. that was not an issue and it was not until i got to the office and talk to my 20-year-old staffers, they said in modern slang i had indeed been complimented on that particular suit. we have the words, but unless we have a common understanding of the meaning of those, that is -- we don't -- we're not really communicating and that's the problem we have with public lands in the united states today and i think there are two factors that go along with it. the first one is simply the size. i've got medium sized posters and small ones so enjoy. everything that's red is owned by the federal government. it is true the federal government owns one out of every three acres in the united states, but it is concentrated with us in the we -- west. we get the joy of having over half of the west being controlled by the federal government. that means that those of our friends who live in the east have some federal land but they don't necessarily have that same

kind of content. let me get the small wurng for example. i pick three states at random. this is obviously the state of my speaker, my majority leader and me. in ohio and virginia and utah, everything that is blue is private property. so our good friends in the east, really, they have some public lands in there, they have very little access, very little interaction. the idea of actually working with the department of interior is not really coming in concept. now in the 1960s, the head of the park service at that time came up with this plan that if i can get more parks in more congressional districts i can get more money and ironically congress was dumb enough to fall for it. we find there are national parks in 49 of 50 states. it's only 13% of the land. the bulk of the land, 44% is blm, but it is only found here

in the west. a few bases. there is no concept of what the blm does back there. consequently, when you talk about public lands, my good friends in the east, the only contact they have is the national park nearby. you say public lands to them and they think of a pretty tree by a pretty lake. those of us who live in the west, we deal with the blm. when we say public lands, we think of sagebrush. we're talking the same language. we don't mean the same thing which unfortunately means most people in pennsylvania and new jersey and new england, when they say public lands, they think all public lands are yellowstone. they are not. in fact, sometime i want to remind them that yellowstone was established in 1872 in the territory of wyoming. the second national park was only three year ago later and it was michigan and we gave it back to michigan because they can

better manage the land. it was 18 years before the federal government actually came up with the idea of another national park. so we have those concepts that simply are different. what it shows us though is that, first of all, states can manage land just as well, if not better, than the federal government. in testimony we've had in our committee dealing with the forest lands in idaho and washington, we simply found even though idaho and washington have the tribes in those two states, they are fewer forest lands, they have much more production over a bigger quality of land, they have healthier forests, fewer fires, less beetle infestati infestation. states and tribes are showing that they can do just as good a job, if not a better job, and i also want to point out that in all due respect, sometimes the

federal government just hurts people because they have the ability of having decisions made by local officials who sometimes are good and sometimes aren't. i'll give you a couple of vamples. in fort vancouver in washington, there was a national historic site in '48. it's basically a community park. they have a pavillon there. the land manager at the site thought the noise that came from the public access area was too loud for the artifacts in her site. so she cancels such things as a church picnic, a youth soccer fair, a concert that was there for the benefit of veterans because the noise at the church picnic would generate would disturb her artifacts in the site, and there was nothing you can do about it except come to congress and try to put pressure on them. lake mead in las vegas, taxi driver in las vegas was murdered, his body was dumped somewhere out there. they did a search for it.

called off the search. the family wanted to hire a company to go in and find the body. it took them 15 months to raise the money so they could buy the liability insurance to get the special use permit that the federal government insisted the family did and once they actually raise the money, a year after the death, they found the guy's body in two hours. we had an air force staff sergeant also drowned in that area. they call off the search. it took the family another ten months getting an attorney, going to court, to have the right to have a search and rescue company who volunteered to help find the body to allow them to come in on federal land and actually once they were allowed to come in, they quickly found the body. i mean, we have examples all over this country of federal land managers who actually end up hurting people and the tee tons they established in the 1950s, the baddleing canoeing would bother the fish habitats.

so they still banned all sorts of paddling activity on ar area that was designed for river recreation. i don't know what you do if you are not in a boat. they banned ferg because simply it took too much time to try and do that. we also have the simple example of federal government in this land process harms kids ntd west. look, in the first picture, everything in red are the states that have the hardest time funding their education system. they raise the least amount of increase in their funds for public education. the bottom is obviously the area that you have public lands and i hate to say this but there is a one-to-one relationship between those who have a problem raising funds for education and those that have public lands. simply because we have less ability to raise taxes. we also have also access to the resources that are there.

the west gets screwed over in our education funding compared to what happens in the east. and over a 20-year period of time, it is simply a matter that the east can raise twice the amount of money as the west can for its own public education. we in the west are taxed at a higher rate than those in the east. we put a higher percentage of our local budgets in education. my kids are harmed by it. my salary is depressed by it. my retirement is still coming through the state education system. it's only because we have a different way of looking at the land, and as i said at the very earlier statement of that, one of the problems we have is that people just don't understand what we're talking about when we deal with public lands. all of the west and public lands are not yellowstone. one last statistic we found out and this hits people who actually live in the east. you add up all the revenue that comes from these lands and all

the expenses we have from the lands. they are putting up 8 to $9 billion of a year out of the pockets of the east for the wonderful opportunity for controlling the west. one of the things there are three false narratives that i would like to dispel. number one is that only somebody in washington has the view of what is good for the entire country. number two, is there ever a difference of opinion on what should be done on public lands between someone locally and someone washington, obviously washington has to win. false narrative. and narrative number three is the west has to be protected from itself. i am tired of that. my education funding is tired of that. it's time to look at things in a new way of doing it, and that's what we're trying to do in congress today. thank you. thank you for the time and i'm sorry to have spent so much time boring you with all of that. [ applause ] rng i'm not sure why i'm here anymore. you guys pretty much got it.

by the way, i have a much shorter bio if you are interested for the next time we do something like that. so i'm going to try to put this into a context maybe why you folks should care. representative bishop did a great job of some of the false premises out there and the misunderstanding of the language we use. in the west we're trying to restore a balance, a balance between individual and state rights and responsibilities. i think that's one of reasons you should care about this because it has a broader context. we're seeing an unprecedented growth obviously of federal power know. obamacare, dodd frank, the endangered species act, sage grass and prairie chicknesses, oh, month. the war on coal, the federal government buys the rope and the

state uses to hang itself. that's one of thing i'm going to touch on. western states are particularly vulnerable to this because of a lot of reasons that representative bishop talked about. we have both the opportunity and responsibility to ask a very simple question. why not govern ourselves? why be states of dependence and why not be able to govern ourselves? imagine if we could restore that balance to make government more accountable by bringing it closer to home? have a servant instead of a master. and really to be able to decide our futures. this is what this is about, is being able to figure out the best way to educate our kids, to steward our lands, to provide for public safety and services using local solutions, local resources, local needs, solutions reflective of those things and not imposed on higher one size fits all solutions from experts who really maybe not -- aren't experts at the local level. we can see who is most at risk

at this, and you've already had some stuff laid out. by the way, if you missed any of those numbers or comparisons, i got more, so don't worry. you'll have another shot at that. but you can see who is mostly hurt at this by looking who is manning the barricades out there for the over reaching and counterproductive policies we're see. the west is the canary in the coal mine. you see ranchers in nevada getting on their horses and riding to the district blm offices to protest loss of access or new grazing restrictions on lands that they have been on for generations. atv riders in utah are risking arrest protesting trail closures. counter -- county kmigers in new jersey are threatening -- in new mexico are trending to break the locks.

accountants, cpas for crying out land, calling on the utah legislature, to relook at the level of dependents that we have there on federal money to perform basic state functions or the primary eventual vulnerable we have in the west we don't control our own resources, we don't own those lands. 50% of all those lands. 600 million acres of land in the west, west of the colorado, nebraska line is owned by the federal government. that's enough land to cover the entire eastern satisfy sea board plus kansas, by texas, plus france. that's a lot of land. 91% of all federal lands are in the west and federal lands make up about 50% of western states. that's scbrus unfair. that's 50% of land that we're locked out of.

50% of our tax base, our productive economy, of our economic potential. if the federal government owned half the casinos in las vegas and started closing doors or shutting down black jack tables, could you imagine the impact that would have on the las vegas economy? if they owned half the florida beaches and started to cut off access, could you imagine the impact that would happen? we have in the west the same rights as everybody else, but we're not allowed to exercise those rights because frankly we came later. we settled those lands later after somebody or a group of people or a system decided to shut those things off from other uses, from productive uses. some say that they are national trarybs and they belong to all of us. some of them are but not a lot of them. if you look at the national parks and the wilderness areas and nobody that i know of is

talking about closing down national parks. these are special lands. they are the exception. they would remain the exception. they make up a small fraction of the federal estate out in the west. generally less than 15% of the federal lands in any given western state are those type of special lands. most of them are multiple use. it's about 20 to 30 million acres per state out in the west that falls under that multiple use designation, the sanl brush in any cases that you saw the picture of. that's 20 to 30 acres that's the area of size of virginia within each western state, that we're losing access to. if we're going to govern ourselves, we need more control over those multiple use lands. we're talking blm and forest service lands that were designated for multiple use both

recreation and economic uses. five states are somewhere in the process. utah is demanding return of those multiple use lands to state control. four 0 other states, montana, wyoming, idaho and nevada are studying it, we're going to see legislation similar to utah in those states. we're also trying to get a study there in new mexico. i'm not here to critique the various approaches. each state is probably going to have its unique road in some ways. each parcel of land is going to have its own unique road in some ways. i welcome all comers to this fight. we want to lay the groundwork to establish the information for folks like you to understand this issue better and to get each state with its own approach because these are lands with trillions of dollars in resources, billions of dollars in tax revenues, hundreds of

thousands of jobs that are increasingly being lock up by people who really don't understand what's at stake here. one of things that's really ironic is that people who claim to worry about adversity and care so much about diversity are choking off an entire way of life. they are imposing their values on the rural production economy in ways they don't understand that. our goal is to stop that. protect the lands, balance conservation in the betterment of the human condition, to manage those lands, in short be proper stewards of those lands. another means of washington's imposition of control is funding. as the representative showed, with that great slide, the federal government is taking up an increasing portion of the budget of states, on average around the country right now it's about a third of state budgets are provided by federal funds and this is dangerous. it's also one reason that western states become more dependent on those federal funds is again we don't have access to our revenue base if many cases, buzz these are funds, federal

funds that are being used to tell us how to educate our kids, how to provide for public safety, run our businesses our charities, our government, how to take care of our environment and resources. those funds come with strings that tell us how to do all those thing and we really have little control over those funds over what we do with those funds, that's just a western problem. that's across the nation. those are discretionary funds for the most part. they are under increasing stress. they are getting squeezed between entitlement spending and as interest rates return to norms. we need to work to create a plan for when those funds -- when the next federal funding crisis occurs or when those funds come under more pressure. we want to see those funds and we're helping states develop legislation and policies that see those funds and the strings that are attached to them to measure the risks of accepting them, not just the rewards and the benefits, and the risks of potentially losing them and creating plans to be responsible, to do what we do in

our every day lives, to budget or to plan for that day when that fun disappears or cut in nink did i way. we maintain the right programs and i'll give you a couple of example in a minute, before i do there's another thing that i want to quickly point out too. we're trying to create a movement in the west and we're trying to publicize and get support for that movement across the country. one state utah is leading the way on most of these things. that's an anomaly. two states, that's interesting. three, four, five, states, now you have a movement. that's what we're trying to do. creating a coalition of leaders to get the right things done out there so we can govern ourself to we can have more control over our destiny. you saw some of the handouts we have, faqs, we try to put to go these tool kits to reclaim state rights and restore that proper balance again and to plan for the future. this goes beyond just wanting to do the right things. this also advances

conservativism. it's at stake here and this is something that's a winning issue. show the costs but also provide a way forward. the left is trying to change the eleak torl map. they are trying to create a permanent majority by making more people more dependent on, more behole ---en too. they increased dependence by increasing benefits. we're at record food stamp recipient levels. obamacare creates more dependence, raises the costs of health care and subsidizes the increase. what a deal, you take a basic need and turn it into a government issued privilege. the crohny corporates and

special interests out there. if you are a capitalist, you want to have your goods and services out there in the marketplace. you want to compete so you can't be a crohny. if you are a crohn any, you may be a corporatist who wants targeted subsidies. you want to a government and you want to influence a government that's big enough and powerful enough to pick winners and losers and decide who gets to stay in business or who doesn't based on either connections or having a correct agenda and that's not the american way. it's not what made us great it's not the direction we can go for very much longer. they are also trying to creating this permanent majority, by creating fear, silencing opponents. you have political leaders publicly berating individuals, private citizens, calling on agencies to audit or to target private citizens who are engaging in legal speech. you have people threatening their opponents for their

political and religious believes calling for the loss of their jobs. they are able to do because of the dependence we've tacitly agreed to. we've cut to those apron strings. we need to find ideas that we can ewe into the -- unite behind. frankly i'm being right for a very long time. i'm tired of being right. into win. we need to push back against federal control and dependence. these are winning issues in the west and across the country. my friend tom in montana, small town in northeast montana, he shouldn't be forced off land that his grandfather homesteaded because george soros saw dances with wolves and wants to put wild bison on there. he shouldn't lose access to land in new mexico that his family has responsibly grazed and improved since the 1600s,

because of san francisco billionaire held a fund-raiser for a prairie chicken. a caregiver in boise shouldn't lose her job because of a federal shut down while we're continuing to run eat your vegetables psas. it's a philosophical war for the west and the freedom we cher issue and the proper balance, the betterment of the human condition and government power. these issues provide an opportunity for all of us. if we can do it together, we can show working class families, we can show them that there's somebody out there fighting for them and there's alternatives out there and there's a path forward for them that enhances their traditional values of hard work, family, community. they have champions, we can be their champions and we can move their issues forward.

we need the resources under those lands, that's an easy argument to make but a lot of those folks who want to make those resources available and the rural production economy are having a very difficult time because they are effectively being disenfranchised. their voice is smaller than the urban voice right now. there are more urban voters than rural voters. what do i mean by that? it's not a code word or anything. it's a demographic term. its population density, that's part of it, but it's also a connect connectedness or disconnectedness with that rural production economy. there are values and there are ways of working that economy. there are things that are important in that economy that make it work that the further you get from the land, the less understanding you have of those and the more likely you are to shunt those aside or not even recognize that you are harming them so when you have -- if you go out west -- if you go to billings, montana, if you go to albuquerque, new mexico, boise idaho, most of the people will be one or two generations

removed from somebody who actually work the land or logged the land or developed resources from the land. they understand those values, they understand what's needed for that rural production economy. you get into the larger cities, you get to washington, d.c., as representative bishop alluded to, people don't understand that so they will unintentionally many times harm the people and the value and the economy that we all need to put electricity in our walls and gas in our cars and everything else. so when rural america goes to work in the morning, they put on their boots, they are not just going to work. they are preserving traditional values and ideals that made this country great. there are people who want to prevent from doing that. they are powering the greatest economy in the world. thumbing their nose at dictators everywhere. again, there are people who want to prevent them from doing that and some people who don't even want to but are. they are building a stronger more environmentally responsible and then sustainable future through this rural production economy that values hard work,

family, and community and in the meantime, by doing that, they are feed scpg powering the world. there's people who don't understand the value of that and they are trying to stop them. self-determination, self-government, that's what really is -- that's what really is at stake in this war for the west that we're seeing picking up steam right now. it's not about dollars and cents. it is for some people. what it really matters, it's not that kind of issue at least not for those who have the most to lose. it's about basic fairness, about preserving viability and the values of this rural production economy. i'm starting in the west because it's in my backyard, it's what i know best, it's where i want to live quite frankly and that's where the risks and opportunities are greatest as well. with great risk comes great opportunity. i hope you'll help us with that. i hope you will create your own revolt in your own backyard. if you would do that, i would be honored to help you. thank you. [ applause ] >> we have plenty of time for

questions and i think plenty of material to work with. if you have a question, if you can just raise your hand and then state your name and your affiliation. >> barney cohen. in the late 1990s, the clinton's administration department of interior carried out an inventory of blm land and they found some 3.3 million acres, if memory serves me correctly, that they really wanted to get rid of, that it cost more money for the blm to manage that land than was really worth their time. nothing ever became of their recommendation to that that. also including the eight years of the george w. bush administration which did absolutely nothing on this issue. now, congressman bishop, i believe you have introduced legislation to -- correct me if i am wrong on this, sell off

those 3.3 million acres and i believe that i saw an article not long ago saying that the obama administration to to the surprise of no one opposes that because as carl pointed out, their thing is to expand government dependency, not reduce it. my question to you, congressman, is in light of the different alternatives that carl outlined to all of us, which avenue or avenues would you support to ultimately convey as much of the federal state as possible, that being mostly blm land from washington to the states, thank you. >> actually, it's not my bill. i'm co-sponsor of it. it's another congressman's bill which has passed the house, it is one of a few bills sitting in the senate and actually needs to go forward and actually the administration testified against

that particular bill, and for whatever reason, it's just mind boggling, i don't know. that bill should go forward. that is the low-hanging fruit. the other concept is we should have as a standard or a policy the idea of transferring as much land and responsibility for that land to the state as is possible, and it can be either done strafle, it done by going through the courts through litigation, it can be done through legislation. one of things i like the state of utah is doing differently than has been done in the past, there's always been a problem, what's the remedy, you say you are being unfairly, what is your remedy the state of utah is now coming up with policies and implementations in there, if we have the land, this is how we would fund it, maintain it. when you go to congress, this is our remedy, give us the land. so we can tell the east, save your money, give us the land and

everyone is going to be happy. >> come out and visit it. >> and don't stay too long. >> terry camp, with senator hatch's office. congressman bishop i know you've had experience with wilderness lands across the southern border. i wonder if you could talk about border security. >> in very quick terms as chairman of the public lands subcommittee, we have look at our problems on the border. 51% of all illegal immigration and almost all illegal drugs and human trafficking are coming through one sector along the border so you got to ask yourself why, why do people want to come here illegally through tucson instead of maine. the simple answer is that it's owned by the federal government.

it's prohibited by law from the border patrol doing anything except foot recon i sans. that simply means the border patrol does not have the ability to control our border. what we need to do statutorily is change those laws and we did it actually in california so they can finish building the wall. you need to change the law, statutory across the entire border simply to allow the border patrol to do what they need to do to secure the border. it's a statutory prohibition they cannot -- the laws that create those land designations prohibit the border patrol from securing the border. >> myron. >> thank you. myron ebelct. i have two questions for both of

you. the first is an easy one, it's not easy, what do you think is the path forward if there is a window of opportunity to defederalize or desocialize some or most of the federal lands, what will be the path forward that will actually achieve that in congress? the second question is what do you think should be the ultimate goal? because the last time we had a chance to do this was early in the reagan administration, 33 years ago, and secretary jim wat and senior economist steve henke had a debate and president reagan sided with steve henke that was we should not turn over the lap to the state and we should privatize directly and particularly we should sell the federal portion of the ownership of the blm lands directly to the grazing permittees, they own

actually the preponderance of the land typically because think own the water rights. president reagan said we should sell it directly and privatize it. i don't care which way we go on this but if we do turn it over to the states i think we should have a goal in most states that most of that land eventually end up in private ownership because socialized land is still socialized land. thank you. >> did do you want to have a -- >> sure and you can correct me. i'm an aall of the above kind of guy to be honest with you. i'm not going to say any idea is a bad idea right now. i think each state is going to some degree tailor their approach but we have to have some kind of unified approach when the rubber meets the road, when it comes down to that supreme court decision or bill that allows this to happen, so

utah has done a great job leading the way on this with what do you want to do with it? they have come through with another set of bills that now creates things like a utah wilderness act that allows the scig nation of lands that are turn over to be made willerness areas in utah, that shows good will. will that happen? probably in a few places. they also have a land stewardship commission that will decide on the best use of each piece of land that's turned over as a process of turning it over. it's multiyear, it's going to take a while, you have to show the good will and the institutional stamina that you can pull this thing off before it gets further in the political process of washington, d.c. before it ultimately gets in the supreme court, no matter who wins, somebody is going to sue. i live in the world of the politically possible, i don't think that's politically possible right now. will some of that land

ultimately be privatized, yeah, sure it will. but some of it will ultimately be fenced off as a result of this process. my point is the state is in a better position to make those decisions than the federal government and that's what i'm focusing on is trying to get that decision making process in state hands where they are much more accountable to people who live there than in the federal government's hands where they are not accountable to the people who live there, limited accountability and limited influence by people who live down the street a ways. >> actually, you said that very well. there is a realm of possibility. people back east who don't understand the difference, i mean, we went and showed these slides once to one -- to somebody who said okay now tell me the difference between forest service and blm which is a legitimate question unless you've been here for 14 years making law on both issues, which he had. so we're talking about people

who don't know the difference and the kinds of land, let alone whether specialized or privatized or that kind of stuff. you say privatization to them and it shows fears going up and down their spine. it will never happen. but the issue at hand is who should make decisions about these lands, is it somebody in washington or somebody who actually lives there and that's what you enunciated. people in the state can make those decisions. whether it be it legitimatized, preserved, opened for development or preserved by the state. they can make that decision than somebody here in washington. that's the first step that has to go. getting those lands to somebody who locally can make those decisions is the first step. >> anthony hazard with u.s. news and world report. there was mention earlier of

special interests here in washington and certainly there's no shortage of that here in d.c., but it's also of course present in state houses, where a buck can often go much farther. what make you confident that state legislatures be able to push back against that influence, such as development that might go on on what many people are seek ong these federal lands? >> for one thing, you are talking about 50 states. if you are trying to change broad state, changing in 50 states is more difficult than one place that has all the power. the other thing, state legislatures, they know their constituents and they know them. i know my personally, i know my representative too. we can have coffee and we can talk. we can't do that mostly with

your representative or senator. you certainly can do that with the local blm. >> it's a matter of accountability, if it's made closer to the people who are affected by those more feedbact feedback is more effective. thank you for going first. i needed time before i answered the question as one of the most insulting questions i've ever had. i told you about the premise. the idea that only -- has what is good for the country. t a stupid, false premise. i was speaker of the house in utah. now i'm chairman of the subcommittee in washington. because i'm a congressman i have better, brighter, more valuable, more moral i was speaker of the house. that's a false premise. a silly premise to think just

because you're in washington mean you make better decision than somebody in the state legislature. i refute it, deny it, and final it personally insulting. over here. we'll get you next. >> hi, my name is paulina. there's mention of colorado, new mexico, utah, but nothing in arizona. i know, with the new epa standards coal mining on navajo tribe might suffer, do you think this is a movement that can be pushed in arizona too people in arizona want more control over federal land? >> yeah. definitely. some people do. [ laughter ] >> can you expand on that more than just -- >> they had a utah-like transfer public lands bill in the legislature, i think it was in 2013. it was beat out by the governor.

i don't know if they're going to make another run tat this year or not. it's not one of the states i'm concentrating on. if you talk to county commissioners and ranchers, they are interested in it. i'm not sure if they have come up with a strategy to move it forward. >> in my -- try to give arizona more chance to make decisions for themselves. of course, they do. they would benefit also. >> good morning. my name is scott cameron. i'm with a nonprofit. i used to work for nevada senator and california governor. i get where you're coming from, gentlemen. in nevada, for a number of years, there was an arrangement where blm lands would be sold and spent on environmental projects in nevada. it's still on. i'm wondering for a political deal could be struck where a blm land sold in the west could be

used to augment the budget of the national park service, fish and wildlife service and so on. would it be enough to entice our liberal friends into supporting land transfer in the west? >> yeah. and there are certain opportunities with that. we have the federal land tran for clip, whatever it comes out to be. which allows that kind of process that can be expanded. we have the land water conservation fund and allows those concepts to be expanded upon. the only problem we do have now is there are some budget rules. depending how you use the particular funds. in some respects, i think our definitions are silly. in some respects insisting we have to have equal value before any kind of trade takes place. that's a silly concept as well. we have to work through some of those. but, yeah, it's viable. >> we had something real quickly, too. there are a lot of heck anymores

for responsible tran for of management of the federal lands. when they're invoked or tried, the first thing that happens is you get a lawsuit. so you have a forest service managing timber lands to not get sued. they are not managing to manage the lands. mother nature doesn't manage them. we do. they manage them to end up in court to use the entire budget on legal settlement or fees or whatever it is that ties them up. one of the things we need to look at, aside from this, is that system that allows people to tie up, to misuse the remedies we already have available. that's kind of a separate topic. it's worth bringing. >> do we have a question over here? >> thank you. i'm sofie miller. i'm wondering the argument giving states jurisdiction over their lands. what are we fighting against?

it's, i think, congressman laid out a lot of that. it's a lack of understanding of what the lands are. they see pictures of the grand tee tons and think it's all the federal lands in the west. that are pristine national treasures. well, some of them. some aren't. some are lands that not only can be used for economic development, for recreation, the multiple uses aren't just possible but often complimentary and additive, in fact. it gives access to hunters and fishers as well. the infrastructure that comes with fossil fuel development in eastern montana or in utah creates infrastructure that, again, forest, recreation, atv riders. they're additive in many cases. i think the biggest obstacle we have, first of all, people that believe that humans are a

detriment to the planet. and others who don't understand that we can do this responsibly and in a way that looks to the future and betters the end condition and supports that real production economy. >> i appreciate the question. there's two big broad responses to it. the first one is, we always have a change in the attitude we have toward public lands. colonial time encouraged people to come over here. then sell lands in the territory make money. they would kick off the squatters they called them homesteaders and encouraged homesteading. a lot of bills was passed. we had an idea we'll keep everything and administer it. so people don't have to mix their hands in the nasty thing. we'll do it scientifically and

let people's desires play a role in it. we are about time for the change. and the idea of multiple use and also the ability of opening up for settling. those things are changing. we're about to change the paradigm. that's why i feel comfort as we go forward and make the changes instinctively how we deal with land. the other is the concept in dual sovereignty. one of the few people that said there are some things that the federal government should do and have power to do. some things states should do and have power to do. we keep mixing it. a lot of people in washington have the idea i'm in congress i should be able to deal with everything including land policies. it was set up to have the states take the responsibility. they can do it so much better. i'm sorry. as bad as state budgets sometimes are, they're not nearly as mind on the appropriations and the maintenance as the national park service is.

going back to the concept of dual sovereignty, going back to the paradigm shift on public lands. we are due to change that. we can go to a better way of handling public lands in the future. maybe time for one more question. right there. >> megan drake with the washington times. you were talking about how would like it to become a movement. can you talk about a big issue in 2016. if you're hoping momentum will gain, especially in the face of the issues like health care, education policies. >> it's going to be a challenge putting the top ten interest at the national level. it already is building a large building movement in the western states. as a cost of the policies become

more apparent at the gas pump and the electric bill, and also those families that are trying to make their living the way they have for a long time, they're going looking for answers, and my job is to be out there with those answers. it's not going to be a -- yes, i think we'll have a movement but it's going to be focussed more on the west than the east but we need help from the east as well. >> that's a good answer. >>well, very good. i think if we have no more question, please, join me in thanking our speakers. [ applause ] we will need to learn again how to work together. how to comprise. how to make pragmatic decisions.

in the upcoming midterm elections, americans will have choices to make about which path they want to go down and whether it will make the investments we need in our people. ly leave that discussion to others. but for a lot of us, in the private and nonprofit sectors, we have work to do, too. government doesn't have a monopoly on good idea, obviously. even if it wanted it couldn't and shouldn't try to solve all the problems by i.-- itself. we have responsibilities to do what we can. hillary clinton's latest book is called "hard choices" about her time of secretary of state. friday live on c-span 2. watch booktv coverage of secretary clinton. followed saturday morning with a book signing in arlington, virginia. both events reairing saturday night starting at 8:30.

booktv television for serious readers. every weekend on c-span 2. the iowa state republican party holding their convention in des moines. u.s. customs and border protections officials testify next on border security and the current pay structure for agents. homeland security committee hears from the labor union. chaired by senator tom carper of delaware. this hearing is an hour and 45 e minute minutes. >> welcome, everyone. a pretty short n statement here and turn it to

dr. coburn and senator tester, d if you would like to make a an statement. senator kuhn is tied up in transportation? okay. all right. is he going to come in at all? do you expect him at all?tn >> esseno. >> fair enough. my thanks to our colleagues and our witnesses for working with our staffs to put this hearing y together fairly quickly. the purpose, as you know, of this hearing is to exam the act merit of s 1691 the border aget payment act of 2014 introduced b by senatorad mccain the bill woo make badly needed reforms -- which is currently too nt to complicated and difficult to w manage. before we get into the bill, i g want to the talk about what is happening currently along our borders. overd the past few years we've seen a surge in unauthorized migration from central america,e which is nearing record highs.

and unprecedented number of unao people we aremp apprehending a e the border are a unaccompanied a children. some as young as 10 years of age. the laws require that the children be treated differently than other myerre grants.ices a they must bend transferred to tc department of health and human services and there are strict rules about their care.task f secretary last weekor announcede he's creating an inner agency task force and devoting. since i became chairman of the e committee some 18 months ago, cn visited the southernd border of mexico and arizona and texasth a number of indications. i've seen firsthand the crowdeda conditions a the the tollla stations in the rio grand valley and visited mexico and hope to spend time in hhonduras. what happens along the border ig only a symptom of the problem. w it's not the underlying cause.ng the hearing will focus on how we

can better address the symptoms. the bill we're examining today will save, we believe, we hope, taxpayers anmoney. hope flay good deal of it. and increase our ability to il patrol and secure our borders. what i've seen it shows the bill would add 1400 agents to the border. that's a lot. givn the challenges on the border which have w been be a underscored by recent events. moving the bill serves to be a s no brainer. i fully sport moving forward with thean't bill as soon as possible. while wet need to treat the op tropical stormle symptoms. we can't stop there.ix based on what i've seen in my trips to so the cause they are a lack of economic opportunity.

bad guys go south and end up inr the three central countries.ed a they're creating may heim. nearly one ago the senate passed bipartisan immigration reform e measure that addresses many of the root causes of undocumented immigration. while the bill is imperfect. it's a significant improvement otherop the status quo and provides our nation with an to important opportunity. it grows our nation by $1 trillion. in order to become law, we neede our colleagues in the house to a act. do a better job of helping central american countries improve their prospect dhoez young people and not so young by helping provided them with the jobs that are secure communities and a future so they stay and build their ow. countries instead of trying to get to ours. e on june 19th i'll be convening a

round table to multilateral banks as well as private institutions to discuss howt we continue to improve the prospects of young people and not so young people in the central american countries. i urge and invite our colleagues in the committee to join us for this round table. dr. coburn, please. to >> first of all, thank you, mr.t chairman. thanks to senator tester and senator mccain as well as they h senator portman.e that they held an important hearing on this in january. i'm the one that asked for the i hearing because -- two points ii would make.s one,pa my goal is not take hav anything away from our boarder patrol agents. we have, i think about 900 or o that aul is no longer authorizea for.nd the goal should be to adequate way for the risk and effort they

put in.g in t but i'm really concerned about t what we're doing here in terms of setting up a system that could become government wide and the question i ask as both accountant and former business manager is if in fact we need to have about $28,000 above or we $29,000 above a gs 12 maxed out the way we're going to do this. why wouldn't we change the baseh pay? why wouldn't we just change the base pay system rather than having this overtime system? the other questions that i have associated with what we're doing is things change. and what we're doing is we're m talking about putting a payment system into statute that guarantees a certain amount of overtime every pay period that

is not part of contractual obligations. this is statute.fac so i'm a little concerned about that as well. risk if, in fact, the border more met difficult l acquiring greater rk and expertise, we're going somewhat limited by how we've done this. i'm looking forward to asking the questions to try to get settled in my mind.co how do we compensate our border patrol agents at the level they have been being compensated and make sure they're skuecure in t future. i don't want to take anybody's pay away. that's not our intent. our intent is make sure it doesn't go away. the other point i would make is there are a lot of positions within the border patrol that don't have to do the write up ay the end of the day.ve don't have to travel back from a position assignment, we're including those in this that

shouldn't have an aul payment. in other words, their job shouldn't require it. the characteristics of the mix is important to me as well.w t so what toild do is get answers to critical questions today. i have a statement that has written for the record and m not again, my hat -- i want to fix this. i'm notmy trying to stop it froi getting fixed. of my understanding is very limites number of people noon longer ha aul as a comparison of the totad hork force. i want to make sureus we fix it right. we also fix it in the way that the house is going to aside to so we solve the problem. i appreciate really senator stio tester ak we essence on and pledge my support to get the problem solved when i get my questions answered. tester. ir good to see you. >> thank you, chairman, rankinge

member coburn. i think i can answer your to ans questions wenow. i think it would be better leftu to the expert panel to answer the questions about things are e changing. because you're right.beca things change. that's why we're here today is things have changed. senator mccain i introduced the legislation a little over a year ago, and we did have a hearing back in january. since our initial introduction, we've worked closely with the cbp, border patrol union, department of homeland security and others to make the bill stronger. we. worked together something that is fairly uncommon in the senate these days.itk it is cosponsored by ayotte and convening bill is in the house e sponsored byp a host of others s both democrats and republicans. the bill is supported by both at

the cbp and the border patrol union, which represents 16,500 s agents in the field.t it saves money.and it creates more stability for ot border agents an their family and increases manpower along the so ier so the security is increased and the agents are better equipped to dot jobs that are very important to all of us. a reform of the border patrol 0r pay system is long overdue. the operation leaves from 40 years ago are different from the criminal obligations we have seen today. we have waited long enough. we need to move forward with this bill because it ensures stability for our border patrol agents and makes sure that our borders are properly manned. in the end, i appreciate the opportunity to have a full committee hearing on this bill. i can tell you that as i look at this bill, it