>> the definition that gets us to the 129 miles is probably a lot longer conversation. that attack at all measure for agents in the field is designed so -- >> i want to know why organ pipe has not been cleaned up. why haven't you stopped the traffic that is bluting the area but also making it dangerous? >> we have made good progress at oregon pipe and throughout the sector. >> send the boy scout troop down there that has your kids in it without your presence, without -- i don't think so, sir. i'm sorry, i was there. i saw the stuff. i don't believe you would. .

>> we do not talk about it that way. >> were the pictures given me by up for service in correct? >> ... and then to know for sure. >>

we want to make sure they are aware of the risks that are out there. i cannot speak to the specific -- >> any specific of forest where they exist? >> we are dealing with some similar issues down in coronado. we make sure that visitors are aware of that. >> that is one of two very dangerous categories. and you do not know if it has been cleared out? that is alarming, my friend. >> i would have to follow up on the concerns that you have. >> it is still alarming that you are in the position that you're in and do not know if we have eliminated those. that is what concerns me about the testimony of all three of you here today. if you are saying that there is

no problem with wilderness. there is no problem with environmental rules, and yet you cannot explain some of the most dangerous areas that exist right in my back door, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> it is my intention that we get through this round of questioning. we have our good five or six minutes. a lot people have to be voting. we will go and vote and we are around a 10 minute break if that is ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to think the witnesses for trying to help the committee with its work. i think that part of the frustration for mr. chaffetz is well founded. this is a gao report from october 2010 on the southwest border.

i have enormous respect for the acting manager then. i've worked with him on a lot of issues. this report in by mr. -- invites chaffetz'frustration. everyone is fine and we're working together. but when you talk to the agents in charge on the ground there, they are saying 17 of the 26 stations reported that there were limitations put on their ability to patrol those areas specifically -- 14 of 17 stations reported that they had been unable to obtain a permit for permission to access certain positions in a timely manner because of how long it takes to work with land management folks. earlier you conceded folks on the ground based on the chairman's question were

applying a different standard for border agents to get into certain areas. that is of great concern. i think that by this inconsistency in and what we what happened and what is happening will invite legislation here. the m.o.u. is not being followed. it is a bet that -- against a backdrop of a very serious situation. we have 600 more civilian homicides in one border town in 2010 than we had in all of afghanistan. and afghanistan is 30 million people. this town is 1.3 million. we had 600 more homicides and it is right on our border. i tell you, i would be more angry than mr. chaffetz has been

this morning and if i of the safety of my -- of the people i've represented was being ignored. you we expect you to protect the border and we do nothing that that is happening. you say that you can do this, that you can get together on this and make sure the environmental concerns are addressed and still conduct robust security on the border. you need to do it. you need to do it. this is a problem. i've been to iraq and afghanistan about 22 times. i should spend more time in mexico from reading these reports. this is right on our border and we cannot afford to be slack anymore. i am hoping that either you address it with a tighter description with what is permissible for the border security folks, or you just come

to congress and say we cannot resolve this and why don't you do it on our behalf? but this cannot continue. this cannot continue. the folks they live on the border towns on the mexican side deserve better and so did the united states citizens in those areas. we have to get serious about that. i think, if there is a different standard from -- that prevents border patrol people from going into these areas to protect the american people in a timely manner, then we need to have real consequences and i did not hear a clear answer when the ranking member ask you, our folks being disciplined when they stop border security folks from going in there and doing their job? i did not hear yes. i heard, we have guidelines that allow us to do that. i did not hear of anybody being fired for blocking access to certain areas on the part of the

security folks. mr. vitiello, you give a rosy picture but the facts do not bear that out. i am sorry to say. we have to be better at this. i guess a before, i will close my remarks, but you are inviting congress to go in there and decide what the rules are going to be. 435 people will make that decision in the house and 100 in the senate and may not come out a way that you think it will. there may not be a better solution than a cooperative m.o.u. between the two agencies, is what i am saying. i just ask you, as mr. kildee as suggested, you have to work together better and start living up to the terms of the m.o.u. and make sure our customs and border patrol folks have access to that area. >> thank you, mr. lynch.

just for a point of information question, 60%e's of organ pipe is off-limits. i am glad as members to come back and vote on that and come back here. i'm estimating about a 10-minute break that we have to take right now. i apologize for this. this is an abnormal day. under a new schedule, the morning should have reserved for this. i'm sorry about that. i hate to walk out on you. we will get through this as quickly as possible. if we have to take a break right now. we will be back shortly. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> obviously some of our members are en route, and we work that because i think there will be another blow and you like to get your panel on your way. let me get a couple of questions. i want to set the stage in the right frame for the first time. some of our conversation earlier was somewhat different. when we were talking about the m.o.u., people were not understanding, we are not talking about folks on the ground are some peons out there, we are talking about high-level individuals, people in charge of the national park fees that should know the definition of exigent circumstances and should not have a tizzy did because they decided to leave the dead

in, they had a circle route instead of a wide turn that he insisted on his particular park. we're talking about a national park director that did not know the definition. the u.s. fish and wildlife service, sent a letter to the border patrol and threatened them. it is not working because people in the field do not understand it. people in washington on not getting it. the m.o.u. may be working for the department of the interior, but it is not helping national security. that is the key issue to deal with. i want to go for a few minutes with the project done in oregon pipe national monument. that is 95% a wilderness. i want to get to ms. thorsen, the result of the negotiations with border patrol over this

project? >> at this point in time, chairman, that project includes four tower situated on organ pipe, and operating has been very successful in their operation in support in the border patrol security mission and actually ours as well. >> what does homeland security have to do to get that permission? >> in my understanding, they met with folks on the ground, the superintendent and his staff, to find the proper locations for those towers. >> what did they have to pay for that? we're running out of time here. >> they paid millions of dollars in mitigation fees for those towers. were those towers and eventually move from where the border patrol wanted them? yes or no answer. >> my understanding is that some were moved. >> yes, ok. what we're talking -- >> and the end, the border

patrol did agree and we all came to the conclusion were those towers could be situated and still allow them to succeed in their border security mission. >> it was moved over 3 miles and we have coverage blackouts in areas of heavy alien in cresson's to this particular country because they were moved. as still border patrol has to pay millions of dollars to the department of interior to get that. when you demand money on border patrol for these mitigation fees, does the mitigation have to be specifically directed to the entity in which is is being into -- mitigated? our can use that everywhere? >> the purpose of mitigation funds in this situation, and the activity -- >> answer the question. does it have to be the area where mitigation a cursor can you use it anywhere? >> it has to be used in the mitigation for that purpose. for the activity that the place. >> tell me why in 2009 and january, you entered into an

agreement with the fencing of the rio grande sector in you get $50 million from the department of interior, $22 million went to buy more land in texas for impact of a species impacted by construction noise wall that was being built? ms. thorsen, the know when any was found in that of national wildlife refuge? >> i do not know that. >> i will give you the answer. it was not in this century. no existing population within 20 miles of the population, what you have to have an indictment for noise and lightning that could not possibly have reached them? >> our mission is to conserve our resources including the wildlife habitat. >> i held a have 30 answers. give me a specific answer to the question. if they aredown there, why did you build a resource for them

with this type of money? it has nothing to do with the project. >> it does have something to do with the project. the mitigation for the fence and the $50 million that you address, the secretary agreed that expenditure of that funding was a proper for those mitigation matches. >> there are no ocelets found their. >> but what they found there, the purpose of that is to maintai habitat for the coceloet. whether or not we have seen one recently. >> in the last 20 years you have not seen one. and you put this extortion money doubt but that particular project. i'll ask you about $5 million for the jaguar prevention, but half of that went to mexico instead. we have a lot more questions about how you're using this mitigation fund and where the monies are going. i will have to yield to the ranking member. >> hit again, i want to thank you for being here. i get it.

i get what the issues are and i assume you'll get it and i don't want to keep beating a dead horse. i guess how i think that there have been some situations where people thought that to spend effective to some degree, the memorandum of agreement by the laws that exist for whatever, but you believe there is a way to work it out with a memorandum of agreement and by working together cooperatively on that. i was taken aback by mr. chaffetz's remarks that people are dying. can you give me any instances of people dying because of the environmental regulations? >> know. >> ms. thorsen, can you? >> know. >> mr. jensen, can you? >> i am not aware. >> if there were, there would be some urgency to resolve that, and my right? >> yes.

>> i think we would all be hopping up and down. i am not hearing that from you. there might be an isolated incident or something be delayed, you're telling me as far as you know, that has not resulted in danger or death of any of that nature and we probably need some processes to expedite resolution of some of these issues, and that is something you are charged with. as a sound reasonable? >> agreed. the framework exists to solve these problems in an expeditious way. we all recognize that within any relationship you will have different expectations. but the m.o.u. is designed to set those expectations uniformly. >> is at the root of this of these areas, the ruggedness of the terrain, is that a bigger problem than working out differences over national security and some of these informal regulations, or is it about the same?

>> there are various challenges that agents have, terrain among them. this particular issue among them. the framework about how authority and how they exercise it, they're concerns about private land and well. that is the role of the patrol agent to sort through those things. that is the role leadership to give them and leadership and make them work as the bridge again be as effective as possibly can. there are limits on all federal agencies and we are not excluded from that. >> there was a report mentioned earlier about our request to put us -- to put a review for that, the delay for four months, is that a particular situation any of you have been made aware of? >> i know the issue in preparation for the hearing. >> can you tell me about it? >> as i understand it, there was a mobile scope truck that we

wanted to move from one area to the other. and eventually get back got sorted through and we moved it. >> was there four-month delay? >> as i understand it, yes. >> what consequences were likely to occur because of the delay? >> i am not aware of specific things. in the context of the operations, people wanted to move that equipment in the capability from one location to the other. under the terms, we needed to sort through, those with the conversations that were supposed to happen. >> you would agree that four months is extraordinary. >> i do not know the specifics and that regard. it seems to me reasonable that if four months is something we ought to be thinking about. >> is extraordinary and we all ought to think about that. we can address that that is being worked on? >> as i understand it, that piece of equipment to get moved. >> much more quickly?

>> yes. >> i cannot speak to the specific circumstances of the one example but we have had reportnce to the gao wrot numerous times today. i like to read two sentences from the summary page, the highlights. we've heard this done numerous times from various members. patrol agents in charge for 14 of the 17 stations reported that they had been unable to obtain a permit to access certain areas and a time limit because of how long it takes for lan management to conduct assessments. that is in the gao report. you need to read all the way through. i hope that our witnesses on the second panel. >> tell us what would save you read through? >> despite the restriction, 22 of the 26 agents in charge report that the overall security status of their jurisdiction is not affected by lans management.

>> we have to work on the other four. >> the m.o.u. helps is with that and we're working to clarify that. >> i yield to the gentleman from utah. >> you have the report did you just read. >> i have the cover pages. >> the cover page does not deal with that. on top of that, it tells how and i went through eight pages of documented evidence when the delays were causing problems. 22 at 26 -- go to page 26 and the report. the aids is in charge of those particular areas tell us the ability to maintain operational control in these areas is unaffected. in other words, no portion of their stations jurisdiction at at their border security status downgraded as a result of land management laws. that is not the same thing. and yet if you go through the report, page after page, example after example, is an experience

in which there has been delayed for border patrol and it is directly because of the land managers on the ground there from your department in your department. ms. thorsen, is there ever an opportunity when you do this m.o.u. debate, m.o.u. workout, where the border patrol as has your department for something, is there ever were you have to ask them or is border patrol always having to come to you and you get to make a decision on whether it is allowed or not? >> the purpose of the m.o.u., particularly as it and circumstances, they make that decision. >> no, attended a half ago for permission? to the permission lies in the m.o.u. if in their judgments they execute operation -- or exigent circumstances or emergency pursued when they need. >> go back and read what happens. that request has to be approved

by the lan manager. and if a land manager does not, then all is there to pay. this m.o.u. does not work because it is unfair. border patrol has to come to you and begged for permission. time after time after time, you are not granted the permission in your not doing it in a timely fashion. and when you do to it, then you ask for mitigated amounts of money which congress has no control. we do not know how much money you're getting from border control. we do not know how you are spending it. at one time we tried, you actually get a list of what you're getting and what you're spending if it was removed from the conference committee report. there're so many problems down there, if it makes one's head span, especially with the rhetoric we're getting here today. i yield back to the chairman. >> mr. vitiello, according to gao, the classified about 129 miles which are "controlled,"

and the 85% were managed. can you explain the difference? >> it has to do with the revision of the national strategy in 2004. we define what we believe with operational control for the context of building resources along the border. specific to the plans made in sectors and station level planning, would decide it was that operational control meant that you have the ability to detect, classified, and resolve to intrusions at the immediate border. it is a tactical definition designed for the local people to understand what they believed the capabilities are and resources were. the difference between manage and control is the amount of timing from the resolution from the incursion. control of the immediate border what happened in real time at the immediate border brief managed would be some portion less than that, or it would take longer to get there. if you talk about that over the

course of your career you've got from just a few thousand agents to roughly 20,000 agents? >> just over 20,000, that is correct. >> i look at this map and the tucson region compared to yuma or del rio, why is it that 51% of the problem seems to be in the tucson region? why is that question -- and we believe it is because of our success in other areas. we have managed -- when i came in the border control -- >> why are you having no success in tucson? >> we are having great success in tucson. >> how can you say this? you're the head of this agency? >> i was in tucson in 2000. >> you are having great success. >> over 600,000 of those people were coming through the tucson sector. last year alone, we were at 51% and this year we are a 44%. is that while success?

>> you just said it was great success. >> we have done a lot of work in the past few years when it was completely out of control. we are maintaining the gains we have made in tucson. and we are proceeding to give that area resources like they have never seen before. there over 6000 employees in the state of arizona. in the tucson sector alone, we have nearly 4000 and we're moving over 4000. there's more technology out there than there has ever been. we talked about the towers. >> by time is expired. i think you are -- mr. kildee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mr. vitiello, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that in carrying out various responsibilities, that you consult with the tribes. how was that working out?

is that running is you would want to run? >> we have within our public lands liaison apparatus, people designed to do liaison work the leadership also pays attention to the relationships that exist for the indian nations there the active borders. >> i'm very happy to hear that. some time agencies tend to forget article i section 8 of the constitution says congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with indian tribes. that is a constitutional basis for that. and with any group, called upon to work with the indian tribes, it all works well as in michigan, there are 12 tribes in michigan. and it works there up well. you can find it working well in your area also.

your area is very broad. somali, the relationships are constant maintenance. there is an ebb and flow, but we understand the import of our relations is there and the leadership takes responsibility seriously. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] >> representative pearce. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. jensen, alanine miles are in the coronado area? >> noaa have to get back on the specific number of miles of roads. tooting you would not know that, mr. vitiello? >> i do not. did you do not new patrols up there? >> coronado is part of the tucson sector. today anyone in the audience that might know that?

>> we will have to get back to you, sir. >> mr. vitiello, you stated in response to a question that this framework exists to solve the problems. with respect to getting into areas with limited access by federal law, they would be wilderness, but did i hear you correctly? >> that is correct. >> and then did i hear you correctly that in cases of danger and death that you have a heightened sense of emergency? >> yes. >> can you explain why 68% of organ pipe is still -- american citizens are not advised to go in there? does that not qualify as an area

where people are told not to go in there, they might not come out alive, with and that the danger or death? when that move it to the top of the list of your heightened sense? >> zone by zone, area by area, we are concerned with our responsibilities within the area of the immediate border. organ pipe is a challenge because of its status. it is also a challenge because the activity that is there. but we are -- we have made plans, we are making investments but that situation in hand. >> that has been that way for -- when did they start putting that off limits to people? >> i do not know that specifically. i would guess it is around the 2000 timeframe. years,ou've had tenor so 11, whatever. ms. thorsen, i am interested again, we're talking about how easy it is to work with

wilderness and it does not affected in a lace, that is the testimony. can you explain the reasoning behind not allowing them into the organ pipe wilderness? it was forced be placed outside the wilderness or in a place they could not see as much of the border and as well. when that be in effect, or is that coming into the close but not qualify category? >> under the provisions of the wilderness act, one of the challenges we had is placement of permanent structure, which would be a tower. in negotiations and discussions that we have with the border patrol and the part, they moved those towers and locations within the boundary of the wilderness but are not designated -- that talk of land is the designated specifically wilderness. they are in the same vicinity, they're just not sitting on what is designated as wilderness. >> so in this case, are you trying to tell me that the

alternate site had as good visibility as the site in the wilderness? because we have exactly the opposite testimony. if that is the case, it if you choose a case with less surveillance capacity, then i along with my colleagues do not understand how you can sit here with a straight face and say it does not affect, that everything is ok, that the framework exists. i will yield back, mr. chairman. >> i may respond, congressman? to then that is up to the chairman. >> if i may respond, mr. chairman? to the congressman's point was question mark the border patrol, and i will speak some for mr. vitiello here, the tower does not given the totality of what they want to say. what they want to do is implement additional measures to fill that gap.

for instance, in their new approach, the integrated tower approach, they will supplement those areas with surveillance units so other types of technology can fill those gaps. it will not go uncovered. between technology and resources. >> i'll pass your us assurances along to the citizens in my district who are scared to death, who know the family that was killed, and whose family lives in my district. i will give them your reassurances. thank you. >> any other questions? did you have a question you want to ask? >> thank you. mr. vitiello, i want to clarify -- are you aware that anyone being killed along the border region that we're talking about here?

specifically about the problems we're having in arizona. the questions about people dying, are they not dying? >> there have been deaths along the border. that directly impact the border patrol, yes. >> just so we understand, my question were there people dying in direct correlation to the lack of enforcement of of an environmental or other laws, and that whether people are dying. >> correct. and in the contents of that question, the specific issue is not costing us as i am aware. >> you are not aware of anyone dying, criminals going through the kerry, going to organ pipe, you're not aware of it one time doing that. >> their debts along the immediate border for people who dehydrate. >> and coming north, correct. i don't know how you define legal border, but the legal

definition is one of your mother you are not aware of anybody that has died as a result of our lack of ability to move and mechanized vehicles on protective lines? i am not aware of that. >> we will go through this in greater detail. anyway, let's go to mr. jensen. in your written testimony coming is that the four services dedicated 13 officers to the coronado forest. 10 of them are accompanied by canine units. what is the forest service total commitment to the border zone across the southwest border? are those of us is on course to mark in what capacity did they have to defend themselves against criminals with high- powered weapons? >> i will stand to be corrected. i understand there is the range of 50 agents in the southwestern region of the four service. >> are they on? >> to my understanding, yes, they are. >> not able to apprehend somebody? >> yes, they are. >> how often does that happen?

if >> now have to get back you on the specifics of how often that happens. they undertake joint operations so i imagine it would be a fairly routine duty. >> your written testimony states that the forest service and the border patrol "rely on each other's strength to work toward the common goals and mutual interest for the public national forest." basically to protect the endangered sensitive species. according to the coronado national forest website, this includes the gray wolf, cactus, the pygmy owl, and the pineapple cactus. are we to believe that for service and the border to our balance in our national security with the pima pineapple cactus and the desert pupfish? >> is not the sort of trade-off.

>> as mr. bishop pointed out, why is it the third -- in the balance of the m.o.u., why are you given deference that they can add to what they think is best to secure the united states of america and their officers? >> as ms. thorsen has testified, it is our experience that they have all lawful authority to pursue suspects in all cases and circumstances around the border. >> that is your understanding of the m.o.u., all circumstances? they have full and unfettered access to use motor vehicles? >> in emergencies. >> no, no, that is different than fall unfettered access, which uses said. to allow me to clarify it. the border patrol has the ability to pursue suspects on foot, horseback, or vehicle when

the iran and circumstances dictate. it is their decision in control when they do that. >> mr. chairman, and to the ranking member, everyone here, i have a serious problem where we are prioritizing desert pupfish above national security. i personally believe that we really ought to be protecting the united states of america and protecting those officers putting their lives on the line every single day. when we have delays the way that we have, i find it unconscionable. i yield. >> the delays we all have an issue with. i want to nail something down here. when we have laws, the environmental laws, things of those natures, you have memorandums of agreement as to how you strike a balance when there are competing interests, and my right on that?

>> yes. in one of these is with the national security interests, someone in the border patrol thought was an as is and circumstance that they get into an area. circumstancesent they get into an area. and no one else determines whether they will go in by mechanized vehicles. >> that is correct. >> they are not looking at pupfish, their professional judgment is, the national security requires that we go and buy whatever means necessary. when they make that decision, it over rise interior and forestry and everybody else, am i correct? >> yes. >> i yield. >> i would say to my friend from massachusetts, as a tense circumstances has not been clearly defined. it is not clearly delineated. number two, retain lead the border patrol is not able to do if what david is able to do and other errors in terms of looking

towers, operating with vehicles, and i was not going to do this. i think i am going to do this. if you have a sensitive part, this is the most graphic thing i have ever seen. if you're a young child, do not watch this. i am going to show you things happening right on our borders. this is on the mexican side. this is what we're concerned our men and women are out there. we're not going to give you all the resources because we're worried about the pupfish. you go on horseback, you walk it. shall the first slide. we're going to do this with lee. do not look if you are sensitive to graphic images. >> mr. chairman. >> this is the kind of thing that we are dealing with on a daily basis. >> a. application. is there a contention that our interior people and others are responsible for the mexican side of the border? with these slides are from? >> keep going. they are dealing with this threat coming into the united

states of america. >> you can turn the mall. they have to deal with this by the hundreds of thousands. in good conscience, i cannot be a participant in the united states congress and not give every tool in resource to the border patrol off to secure that border. i do not give a crap about a pupfish,. i do care about america and the border patrol agents. when you tell them that they have to go on horseback when they were rather be in a vehicle, that is fundamentally wrong. i yelled back. >> to you want a minute? >> we have made the point hundred times. i think we can leave it at that. >> i appreciate that. the answers you give him, make sure they are enforced in some way. you can be happy that the pupfish as a buffer zone paid for by border security. we appreciate the witnesses and your testimony. members of both committees if

they have additional questions for the witnesses are asked to submit those and we will ask for you to respond to them in writing. we're now ready for the next panel of witnesses. the units of time to reconfigure the table? -- do you need some time to reconfigure the table? >> for the next panel, we will have to swear you in. while mr. pearce, i welcome him to the panel. mr. taylor, a founding member of the national association of former troll rigid border patrol officers. we invite mr. jean would, of former border patrol agent -- mr. gene wood, who will be

introduced by mr. pearce, if you like to take a few minutes to do it justice. >> members of the subcommittee, thanks for allowing me to be here on the dais with you today. i like to introduce some of my -- my friend and constituent, gene wood of new mexico. he served in sectors in san diego, california. i look forward to his testimony in the witnesses here. i welcome him from new mexico. >> i also want to recognize tim chilton, a fifth generation cattleman whose land practices have won awards. his family ranches 50 miles southwest of tucson and it includes four miles of border as well as, is the first and ensure? the first time i've gone right today.

i understand it you're the author of the gao report we have been referencing throughout this case. mr. chaffetz. >> is customary to swear and all witnesses. please rise and raise your right hands. do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and the whole truth so -- in nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record reflect the witness is all answered in the affirmative. >> we thank you for being here. as i mentioned to the earlier panel, all of your written testimony will appear in the hearing record. will have five minutes to summarize it. the lights in front of you will give a countdown. the yellow line means that you have a minute. i'll also tell you that we're going to have another series of books sometimes endured what i like to do is get as far along as we can so we do not have to

hold you. i hope none of you have afternoon plane flights. it is not going to happen. i appreciate you being here. mr. wood, we will go left and right again. if you like to be the first to give your testimony, we would appreciate hearing from you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman bishop, and thank you to mr. pearce -- >> if they can move closer to you, it is hard to hear you. >> my name is gene wood. as a retired member of the u.s. border patrol and a founding member of the national association of former border patrol officers, it is a real honor for me to talk today on the merits of the proposed legislation. i do not represent the border patrol. instead, my testimony will rely

largely on personal knowledge and expertise of hundreds of former agents who are members of our organization. there are members of collective experience, i believe, which will enhance my ability to present to you informative accurate information and conclusions. the border patrol was established in 1924 and for nearly 87 years the supervisors and their agents has successfully developed techniques and strategies to prevent illegal entry of aliens into our country. one of the most effective of these techniques is deterrence. it is proven to be a desirable strategy because it is not involving the dangers involved

in physical or arrests, it does not involve costs always incurred in the detention and removal of millions. today i would like to address part of my testimony to enforcement efforts in the tucson sector of the border patrol. i've chosen insecta because i served there before i was chief becausesuchosen tucson i served there before i was cheap. it is one of the largest sectors of our southern border. it does to wondered 61, and miles with mexico. it contains a large areas where there is restricted land designations. since 2004, leadership of that sector has changed frequently, with subsequent assignments of some of the distinguished and

experienced chief in the border patrol. with the support of congress, the agency work force has increased in mid even experimented -- and we had even experimented with national guard troops, and i believe, gentlemen, as does the national association of former patrol officers, that the efforts to gain operational control are not the results of poor management or lack of resources. it is simply an issue of denied access. unfortunately, our country's willingness to accept these unwise restrictions has been aggravated in recent years by the unrelenting prescience -- pressures of drug cartels.

that brings us to one of the most pivotal questions facing present border patrol supervisor and agents -- how do we protect our national security successfully in these highly restricted areas? with time proven and effective technique gained through experience, their limited because of these self-imposed restrictions. expensive technologies cannot be efficiently implemented and manpower assets become more difficult to utilize. for these reasons, the leadership of the national association of four patrol officers enthusiastically endorses the decisive remedies for -- called for by congressman bishop, including the way for hold the restrictions listed in

the proposed legislation. we believe that if enacted, it will have a high probability of success and it is an absolutely necessary first step to achieve our goal, our national goal of operational control. we also believe that approval of this proposed legislation will help convince the american public that congress is now seriously seeking remedies to improve national security and public safety of our citizens. there is another reason -- it makes perfect sense to do this. my time is up? >> you do have your written report as well and there will be questions for you. i still think we're going and we

have more time here. mr. taylor, you have five minutes. >> members of the committee, thank you for allowing the national association of former patrol officers to address this distinguished assembly. i'm here to talk about passage of h.r. 15 05, this bill is brilliant in its simplicity. why? because the primary purpose of border security is to ensure national security and promote public safety for all americans, including border patrol agents on the border. each of you represent constituents found in communities that have been a virtually affected by illegal immigration and drug smuggling. no community in the analysis is safe from these transnational criminals and criminal organizations. as long as the external borders of unisys remain open to them, they will continue to come.

if the rubble -- the level of violence these groups are capable of and routinely employ is incomprehensible to any civilized person. f porter patrol agents in the arizona spend a significant amount of time patrolling public lands because much of the land along the arizona border is public land. these agents report that the apartment of homeland security and bureau of customs and border protection are intentionally misrepresenting the situation along the southern border, especially concerning the relative safety of the border area and the number of aliens detected that get away. therefore i am here today to tell you what rank and firle agents are unwilling to tell you, even if subpoenaed and placed under oath, for fear for pause. they say that in the urban border area, it is more dangerous to work. and that the federal public lands thenogales have evolved

into lawless area patrolled by drug smugglers from mexico. they do not have unencumbered taxes on all public land to patrol the border. the concept is simple. if you cannot access the border, you cannot patrol the border and therefore you cannot secure the border. limited access areas include wilderness and refuge areas, there will be on criminals who will not hesitate to fire upon them and that the probability that if anyone is seriously injured, they will surely die before that injured person can be safely transported or evacuated because of access issues. there is also the fact that they're reluctant to patrol these areas because they may find themselves the subject of a dispute between their agency and agency controlling the land they seek to patrol. as an agent on the ground, the very idea that a plant or some obscure animal is more important than their life is an unsettling reality that further discourages

them in their area -- in their effort to secure the border. you need to protect our border patrol agents. the perceived lack of interest on the part of the department of homeland security to aggressively pursue criminals that kill or attempt to kill or to kill border patrol agents, to sweep these issues under the carpet is reprehensible. here i have a copy of an arizona trapping regulation, and homeland security issues along the international border may affect the quality of a person's heart. the delineated area goes from the california border to the new mexico border and includes all land south of interstates 8 and 10 and no. as far as a city. it passes to the near west of tucson. we have reserve reports of agents following tracks of an all terrain vehicle that crossed illegally. they followed the trail across public lands north into phoenix

and apprehended a vehicle with marijuana with a 15-year-old illegal alien. there was a barrier in the table top wilderness. to prevent smuggling vehicles from driving further north. i go on for hours with individual examples of why this legislation is necessary. however, my five minutes is nearly up. we urge you to support mr. bishop's the bill, h.r. 5105. we can get the unencumbered access to fellow republic plans within a 100 miles of the border they must have to secure the border and provide them the reassurance that the united states congress is behind them in that effort. >> thank you very much. recognized, you're

for five minutes. if you could pull that closer to your mouth so that we can hear it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am a rancher and ranchers shoot straight. it was really upsetting to listen to the bureaucratic doubletalk by the forest service, fish and wildlife, and the border patrol. i live on the border. 4 miles of my rent is the international border. the border is not marked and consist of a five-strand barbed wire fence similar to what people see along highways. there is no wall and you never know it was the international border by viewing it. but the cartel's know. we strongly believe that the border patrol must control the

border at the border, not 10, 20, or one murdered miles inside america. we have heard a few years ago that the border patrol found several backpacks near our ranch which contain yememi passports. we wonder whether the honor of the backpacks were tourists or terrorists. we must protect national security above all else. national security must not be trumped by environmental laws or federal land managers. it would seem impossible to win world war ii of the military had been forced to comply with current laws such as the national environmental policy act, the endangered species act, the clean water act, and other acts enacted by congress after world war two.

the construction of thousands of military bases and air fields and port facilities inside the united states during the war would have been delayed for years. would not make sense to control the border at the border, by completing the border fence? there is no border fence from nogales to sacebee, about 50 or 60 miles. wouldn't it make sense to have a functioning 21st century communications near the border, installing cameras and sensors and using drones and helicopters and satellites and other proven technologies developed by the military? the border patrol needs to be able to construct roads, helicopter pads, and place for the operation bases at very close or next to the border and

be free of in pediments caused by environmental laws and federal land managers. when managers must not be allowed to interfere with the access of the essential use of land to protect we the citizens. recently environmental mitigation divergence resulted in 50 million border patrol funds being transferred to u.s. fish and wildlife service for alleged environmental damage. the real environmental damage is being caused by drug and people traffickers whose impact is enormously more harmful to the border than the border patrol. we're told that the border patrol -- as of possibly 20% of

illegal crossers have criminal records. criminals engaged in human and drug transportation find it convenient to use wildlife refuges and wilderness areas as easy corridors to hide and travel. my fellow rancher, rod, was murdered with a killer escaping back to mexico to the san kennedy no national refuge. . we oppose the designation of new wildlife areas, land, or refuge's within 100 miles of the southern border. such designations are virtual gifts to mexican cartels. it is outrageous that hundreds of mexican cartels scouts, with the best binoculars, night vision, and encrypted satellite phones, have been found to

occupy the tops of mountains near our ranch, and near our house, and dozens of miles inside the border. as a confidant, the cartel scouts know where the border patrol is located at all times and can then carefully guide ak- 47 gun packing, drivers, and people smugglers, through the mountains and valleys without being spotted by border patrol. we have been burger it was. ranchers in the border area cannot leave houses on guard for a few hours, since their homes are likely to be broken into if someone is not there. we live with weapons near our bed. our doors have weapons next to them. we have weapons in our vehicles and we attach weapons in our scabbards on our saddles.

the border control must control the border at the borders so citizens' civil rights, property rights, and human rights are protected. ranchers along the border cannot have peace of mind until the border is in fact secured. >> i appreciate that. just so you know, there's a boat going on right now. we have told members to go quickly and come back. we are not walking out of this. people will be coming back again. >> the members of the committees, i am pleased to be here to participate in your joint hearing on environmental law and border patrol operations. 40% of the southwest border is federal land managed by the department of interior and agriculture. these lands are characterized by remote terrain. they have not deterred illegal border crossers, whose activities have damaged the

environment by dumping tons of trash and causing wildfires to escape on these lands. border patrol and land agency officials recognize that stopping illegal traffic as close to the border as possible is essential not only to protect security, but also to protect the natural and cultural resources on federal land. last fall, the gao issued two reports on border patrol operations on federal lands along the southwest border. my testimony will summarize the findings of these reports. these were prepared collaborative lead by staff and homeland security and justice teams and the natural resources and environment team. accompanying me is rich, the director who leads gao's work on border security issues. we found border patrol must comply with land management laws, such as the wilderness act, when conducting operations

on federal land. under these laws, border patrol, like other agencies, much obtained permission from the agencies before agents can undertake activities such as maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. to help implement laws, border patrol and land agencies have developed agreements. we heard about the 2006 mou. these have led to numerous instances of enhanced cooperation and better access by border control on some land. we found instances where despite these agreements, land management laws had impacted border patrol's access to land. 14 of the 26 stations responsible for patrolling federal lands along the border told us that they sometimes faced delays because of the length of time it takes managers to complete requirement before a permit can be issued. some of these delays could have

been reduced if border patrol used its own resources to perform its own assessments and other delays could have been reduced if the agencies that conducted environmental impact statements for the region as allowed under the act. we recommended that the agencies take these steps to avoid such delays in the future. five stations told us that because of the esa and endangered species, they had to change the timing or location of patrols. they also told us that these changes have not affected their ability to detect or apprehend illegal aliens on federal land. we found that while land management laws caused delays and restrictions, they have not impact of the operational control status for 22 of the 26 border patrol stations. we found that 18 of these

stations reported that the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain and dense vegetation had affected their level of operational control on federal land more than access delays or restrictions caused by losses. according to the stations, the key to obtaining operational control on federal lands on the southwest border is to have a sufficient number of agents have access to additional technology and additional tactical a constructor. they did not identify changing by the environmental laws as any requirement. four stations did tell us that their ability to achieve for maintain operational control for federal lands under their jurisdiction had been affected by land management laws. only two of these stations had requested additional resources to facilitate increased or timely access to read gain operational control. in both of these cases, their

requests were denied by senior border patrol officials because of other higher agency priorities. finally, seven years ago, we were critical of the lack of information sharing and communication that existed between the border patrol and laid agencies. in 2010, we found the agencies had made significant progress in some areas as a result of the implementation of various interagency agreement. we also found that they could still take additional steps to ensure that coordination of threat information occurs in a timely manner and agencies have compatible radio communications. the agencies are taking action to implement our recommendations. this concludes my prepared statement. i would be happy to respond to any questions you have. >> thank you. i appreciate all of you for giving a statement. they will be in the record. if there are additional

statements that are written, we may ask you to respond to those. let me go through a couple of questions, if i could. as i understood you as you were talking here, very nice, for a balanced report, but you did find a correlation between environmental laws and delays of the border patrol's ability to get permits from some managers. >> we found the implementation of the environmental laws had resulted in delays and restrictions. >> this is a question -- i don't know what the answers. i asked this of one of the panelists. all of these issues that you went through, did you ever find a chance when the request was made that it was border patrol always asking the interior or ag for permission? it was never the other way around. >> you asked that question earlier. one of the things that we noticed was that border patrol

has a lot of flexibility under these acts to actually undertake a number of these assessments themselves. they have not been doing that. >> as long as they are allowed to do that. i appreciate that. let me ask a couple of questions. for the of the witnesses, -- and other witnesses, in your opinion, from your experiences on the ground, our environmental laws such as the endangered species one, compatible with border security? do you have examples of the problem you have seen with those? any of you? go ahead. "down that road. >> the answer is no. national security should not be trumped by environmental laws or rules and regulations of a different department, like

interior, forest service, and fish and wildlife. there is a refuge in arizona called the san pedro national conservation area. it starts at the international border where the san pedro river enters the united states. there is a wall that comes each way and stops. there's a 1,500 foot gap. .he refuge's two miles wide the conservation area is 50 miles long. the border patrol has no access into that area except at the border. that is limited access. it is a past f -- path for

druggers, illegals, and perhaps a terrorist to walk 50 miles into the united states. how does border patrol try to patrol it? they patrol the perimeter. if you have 50 miles one way and the other way, two miles on the end, that is 102 more miles of fence that the border patrol has to patrol. they are not allowed into it. since it has become a national conservation area, the road has deteriorated. the refuge, the conservation district manager will not let the border patrol or anyone grade the roads and have access. >> thank you. i appreciate that. let me change that question slightly for you. do you see anything fundamentally strange that the border patrol has unlimited access on private property, but

does not have unlimited access on public property to do their jobs? >> thank you for the question. it has not gone on noticed to us that the memorandum of understanding that we discussed earlier, it is nine pages of single-spaced typing. read, buticated to the point i am making here is that in contrast -- in contrast to the mou, the federal statute now in effect allows border patrol unrestricted entry within a distance of 25 miles from any x kernel boundary, and to have access to private lands, for the purpose of patrolling the border, to prevent illegal entry of aliens into the united states, that statement is

contained in only four sentences in paragraph 83 of section 287 of the immigration nationality act. >> my time has expired. i read one of the footnotes to put in there. in the years that the refuge was created, there was language that it could not interfere with the concept of national security. i found that a unique concept. maybe we -- when we have other time, i can ask you to respond to that one. >> thank you. the border patrol agent that was here represented, that he thought what was happening in the tucson region was great success, how would you react to that? >> the border patrol is still

not at the border. border patrol is doing what they can. i respect what they are trying to do, but the border is not secure. they cannot get down to the border. they try to patrol five, 10, 15 miles inside the border. allow us to live in a no-man's land. there has been some diminishment in traffic across. when i talked to be border patrol people, they say that traffic is moving further west into the indian nation and into the organ pipe area. -- oregon pike area. we don't see people moving through a rant.

we don't see those thousands of people any more because there are scouts on top of the mountains who are guiding the cartels and the people smugglers through our ranch and other ranches. the border patrol is known -- they know where the border patrol is at all times and the border patrol does not see them. they move right through into phoenix. >> how dangerous is it there? >> when we are riding horseback, i pack two guns, a rifle and pistol. if i see people coming along with an ak-47 and a whole bunch of people with backpacks with drugs in them, i go the other way. fast.

if i have to, i will pull up my horse and go to shooting. it is dangerous. it is dangerous. we should not have to live under those conditions. the border should be handled at the border. >> mr. taylor, you talk to me about the morale you're seeing and how do these agents feel the difference is between what they can do and -- in other areas and what they can do in the wilderness that type designated areas. >> it is not only the wilderness designations, but the public land that adjoins the wilderness. i am talking specifically about one wilderness. but one of the first actions i had when i went there as a supervisor at that time, you may or may not be aware we have federal troops supporting the border patrol. we had a team from the marine corps base working in

conjunction with us. a firefight ensued. this was in 1989, between the marines and the packers. a land manager was not concerned about the fact that we had a fire fight. they were concerned about the fire that ensued in the wilderness area. we had to quit going in there. >> how big a scenario was that? >> that particular area -- there is a protected area within the protected area, and that is where there were. the marines were there because that is where the smugglers chose to come through the border. that in turn will come inside of the wilderness, i think it is 150 acres. >> question for you. this definition between control and manage, a deed you feel that there was a unified vision and

understanding of those two definitions and what was truly controlled and what was not control? >> we used the border patrol's definition of operation control. when we were talking to their patrol agents, we were using definitions that their agency had developed and that they should have been fully understanding of. that is why we used the definition of operational control that was defined by the border patrol. >> very good. my time has expired. i yield back. >> do you have questions for these witnesses? >> thank you very much. i want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony. i would like to ask, did the gao find that any environmental laws need to be repealed or dramatically altered in order for the border patrol to

effectively perform its mission? >> during our audit, what we found is that it was the implementation of the environmental law that was causing the delays and restrictions that the border patrol agents identified. nobody recommended it was a particular law or provision of the law that needed to be changed. what we noted was that the mou that was implemented by the three agencies was not effective in implementing the environmental laws. >> congress then come its position should have perhaps more on how we can better have the enforcement of these laws, then. >> in our review of the four laws that were repeatedly cited by border patrol, we found that

the laws provide a lot of flexibility, as well as a lot of options. border patrol has not exercised all of the flexibility is and all of the options that are provided to it under these environmental laws. it is very easy to go back and blame the land management agencies when you have not yet taken the actions that the laws provide you as the action agency. so i think the reason we did not make any suggestions or recommendations about changing the environmental laws was because their flexibility is an option available to border patrol that it has not yet exhausted in trying to comply with the environmental laws. >> based on your interviews, how significant a problem our public land and access issues to be border patrol sector cheat that you interviewed? what is their feeling on that? >> there were 17 border patrol

agents in charge. they told us that they had experienced access delays. however, and not in a briefcase did that cause a problem in their ability to fulfil their function. there were five that had to change their patrols as a result of the endangered species. all of those border patrol agents told us that had not impacted their ability to apprehend and detect illegal aliens on federal land. there was a mixed bag. in some places, the delays have caused an impact on their operations. in of the places, it had not appeared >> thank you very much. i know congress wants to end all of us at this table want to make sure we have the proper balance and in writing our laws. all of your testimony today has been helpful. i thank you. mr. chairman.

>> i have some more questions. we will do another round. mr. taylor, can i ask you, we talked a lot about whether border patrol can go in under the exigent or emergency circumstances. can you tell me what is the difference between perp patrolling in going in for exigent or emergency circumstances? >> patrolling is done routinely. daley. -- daily. it involves two things. catching people as they crossed the border and catching them once they have. if you do not have access to the border, you cannot patrol it. you have to back off. the further you have to back off, the more territory you are feeding to the enemy. >> can i follow up on that? can you explain the obstacles border patrol faces if they are

blocked from building new roads or maintaining existing roads, and you know, is it just good enough to have a single road running through it? >> no. i have been a field agent in the border patrol 26 years. the last 14 were in arizona. so i worked that area. when you have a situation where you cannot get in there and pulled somebody out who gets in trouble, it is best not to send them in there. what happens is the area does not get patrol that all. >> i see. thank you. can you explain the mou and why it is a concern. >> thank you. the big hatch it is the name of a mountain peak located in southern new mexico. it is the sole source for communication.

historically, there was a repeater up there. the land managers found out about it. border patrol was required to take it down. since then, it has been put back up with the restrictions that make it very very difficult to manage. as an example, the border patrol will be required to take that down if that area is designated wilderness. the caveat to that is they will not be able to take it down except through certain months of the year because of the liming season for some endangered species there. it's the highest peak in the area. it is subject to damage by

lightning and other natural effects. if that repeater goes down from lightning and it is during the period where border patrol could not access it because of those limitations, then that entire area is going to be without communication, and the border patrol agents assigned in the re are going to be in drastic danger. i think the former chief of probably pull the agents out there that happens. it is just not worthwhile to take that kind of chances against one of our agent. >> thank you. mr. taylor, last december, agent terry was murdered on the national forest land. how should that influence this discussion? >> i mentioned the earlier, mr. chairman, that those areas that

border wilderness, and in this particular case, the particular with the -- wilderness, borders the national forest on the south. the bandits that were involved in that apparently came through the wilderness, up to the coronado, and at the intersection of the mountains is where the gun fight happened where the agent was killed. apparently, the agent tried to follow the people that did the shooting back into mexico and they went through that wilderness, which the agents had no access to. matter of fact, there's not even offends their limited places. it has been on the ground so long, the occasion has covered it. >> is this the map with talking about? is this the area? >> yes, sir. >> can you explain what we're looking at? >> in the lower right-hand

corner, that as were border patrol the station it -- that is where the border patrol station is. on the east side, that is the arrow on the left. where you see that boxes where i call the kill zone. this is where the bandits -- there are two groups of bandits, those trying to protect drug and aliens, and the other side is trying to rip them off. both groups are apparently armed. once they get past the kill zone, you look at the arrow in the upper right-hand corner, that is where the border patrol checkpoint is. the aeros to the left follow the high lanes and take the aliens and the drug smugglers beyond the border patrol checkpoint. the purpose of the boxes to show that almost all of that kill zone is right on public land.

it is in the coronado national forest. northwest quadrant is where the agent was killed. in the northeast quadrant over four days, with in the last 10 days, they found three bodies. ondon't have a ruling yet what caused the death. also in the upper left-hand corner, december, 2009, is where agent rousseau was shot. we think it is the same group of bandits that shot the agent. it has expanded slightly. if you think about it as a horseshoe, it is covered on the left by public land. it is covered by the east on public land. it is all mountains. the reason the alien smugglers use that is because when they have the high ground, they have the tactical at vantage. they can see the border patrol

coming. border patrol has to go to them. the only way they can do that is on foot. horses won't work in that area. in some of those places, you have to go on your hands and knees. it is that steep. i hope that answers your question. >> thank you. i am over here. i have a couple more questions. did you have anything else further? >> no. >> let me ask two more questions. we will let you go, actually. let me do the first one. in a letter of official allied service regarding the refuge, an endangered species concern, the fission of but service asked the border patrol to stop doing operations to cut signs near the refuge. can you explain to us what sign

cutting is and why it is an important tool? what are the implications if the border patrol can i use this tool? >> yes, sir. as i alluded to earlier in my testimony, cutting -- sign cutting is one of the preferred and effective techniques used by the border patrol over the years. it requires that a road be parallel to the border, if that is the area you want to protect. decollete dragged road because they are frequently smooth over by one method or another. evidence of illegal entry is easily identified by the agents that are working that area. one of the critical things of that, you have to have access. you cannot effectively do sign

cutting or drag roads away from the border. you have lost the funnel for these entries. they spread out over large distances. if we are not able to use that technique, we're losing a very valuable tool that we have developed over years. i can tell the committee, the border patrol agents now and previously were some of the best sign cutters in the country. i always have to mention that. it is an old technique, but it has been very effective for our agency. >> thank you. i will give you the last chance to comment on a question i had. 2007, the subcommittee received a letter from one of your good friends. that family, the purpose was to

oppose a new wilderness designation. she stated the border patrol should not be excluded, nor should national security be sacrificed, in order to create a wilderness area. we are in fear for lives and out of our families and friends. i think you mentioned what happened within a year of that particular one coming in. i would ask you -- this is not a question. we know what happened. this is a sad situation. i realize that she was also hit by another accident. very difficult situations. would you extend our appreciation to that family and our concern? one of the reasons why we are pushing forward with these concepts is because of their family and what they suffered down there. if you do that, i would be appreciative. >> i will. she helped me prepare my testimony and she is really, really angry that wilderness

areas are still being proposed. she is angry that her husband's killer has not been found, and she believes that national security demands securing the border at the border. i will be very happy to call her this afternoon and talk with her. thank you, mr. bishop. >> i appreciate that. you get the chance to ask the next question. >> highly unlikely. we will see how it goes. thank you. i want to ask the questions. i apologize for having to step up. i want to reiterate what i understand your report to be. i thank you for your work. i understand there's no direct correlation between the environmental laws and the

wilderness laws that cannot be resolved by the departments working together and overcoming any conflict between national security and the intended protection of those laws. correct? >> what we found is that the mou was designed to take care of those conflicts and make sure the agency's work well together. even some areas, it is doing a really good job. in a very committed not affected. >> figures the look into those areas not affected as to what the cause of that was? >> what we heard repeatedly was that the land management agencies do not have the resources to always expedite border patrol's request. border patrol does have flexibility is under the existing laws to undertake a number of the environmental assessment itself. it can conduct environmental impact statement for the region. it can establish categorical exclusions for its activities.

none of that has been done yet. >> so we need to focus on making sure they use all their resources properly in that area. we need to look at increasing the resources where they are lacking, and i suspect that we probably need to do a bit of training. is that a fair thing to say? to make sure the mou is operative and implemented in the manner to be? >> yes. training was something brought up by almost every agent in charge and every border patrol agent we talk to. there would like to see more regular land-unit based training provided by a land agencies so that they understand the environment they're working in. >> ok. better training, better use of what resources exist, better resources where they're lacking. what else would you recommend? >> i believe holding agencies accountable to make sure they can demonstrate to you that they have exhausted all of the available flexibility that they have available to -- at their

disposal, and they're running into problems in doing their jobs, and if congress can hold them accountable, i did not hear any new information provided by any of the agencies that testified that they have exhausted the authority that congress has provided them. i think holding them accountable is essential. >> it looks like congress did its job in terms of writing as laws. it may not be doing all it should be in terms of oversight right now. here we are. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. >> of the questions? i want to think this panel very much. i appreciate the hard work that you and gao put into the report. i think it is very enlightening. i did read the footnotes. >> you did, sir. i'm impressed. >> to our guests, i appreciate you being here, for giving us the perspective of someone who actually lives on the border and

faces these situations on the databases. thank you for being here and representing what it was like, representing a border patrol agent who is no longer worried about his status as a border patrol agent. thank you for your testimony during much. i appreciate it. it was especially vulnerable to all of us here. let's see. if there's no further business, then without objection, this hearing is adjourned. thank you again. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in this year's student can competition last student to consider washington, d.c., through their land. the third prize winner address the topic that better help them understand the role of the federal government. ♪ >> and god said, let there be

light. and there was light. >> in this documentary, we will show a how led light bulbs are changing the way we see the world. >> a local company is revolutionizing the commercial production of led lights. we will see how the federal government is allowing local and state governments [inaudible] to more efficient forms of lightning, especially led's. >> can you name several different types of light bulbs currently on the market for consumers? >> incandescent, fluorescent, you have compact fluorescent, you have led's.

>> halogens. compact fluorescent. led's. that is about what i know of. >> i want to ask you if you know any of these light bulbs in here. it is ok if you don't know. incandescent light bulb. do know this is? >> florescent. >> this light bulb? halogen light bulb. >> finally, this light bulb. led. this is what we're going to do. the light bulbs we talked about are on these cards. try to match them up.

["jeopardy" music] >> as you can see, two people want to 20 correctly identified led's. >> most americans still use essentially the same incandescent light bulbs invented by thomas edison more than 120 years ago. their famously inefficient. 10% of the energy that hey generate becomes light.

90% is wasted. i would observe that sounds like congress. >> i'm going to test the heat output of these light bulbs by using this in for read thermometer by pointing it at each of them. i can find out the heat output. >> when you hot, you hot when you not, you not ♪ >> another way to illustrate the difference in the amount of energy that is lost in the form of heat is the ice cream test. i will place two ice cream cones under two bulbs that are similar in light output. the green one and is underan an led light. the red one is under a standard incandescent floodlight. let's try it and see what

happens. ♪ it shine on let it shine ♪ >> which they scream: would you like to eat? -- which ice-cream cone would you like to eat? ["mission impossible" music] >> it starts with a core technology. led's were invented by hewlett- packard for calculators' display screens many years ago. through the evolution of technology, white led's were

invented, which is what we use today. they are an efficient way to create light. there are a few big advantages, which is why we are selling them. first of all, they say a lot of energy. they're very efficient. second, they contain no mercury. when you look at has materials, the other white light sources contain nitrogen -- contain mercury. the other big advantage of them and because they're so small, you can get very efficient optical controls. the light goes where you actually want it instead of just a blob of light. the disadvantage it's just the price. it is more expensive than traditional lighting, even though over the long run, it pays. i think a couple things relative to the federal government right now. first of all, there are some tax

credit that are available for a business to people to invest our money in developing led technology for the picture side. on the consumption side, we are active in the department of energy. the department of energy has an entire lighting section that is working on promoting that liking. they have started, for example, in municipal street light consortium where they actually go out and promote street lighting to different cities around the country in order to try to achieve that. i think leslie, part of the stimulus funds that are available today through the department of energy are available to cities for energy efficiency upgrades. several cities are taking advantage of that money, that block grant money, stimulus money, to upgrade to led street lights.

>> there has been a proposal to replace inefficient light bulbs with a combination of products that would create product sources. it would replace the light bulbs with a combination of the compact fluorescent lights along with new technology, including halogen comic incandescent, and led's. >> i believe the led market will completely dominated take over all light sources for residential and commercial applications. >> stu 02dentcam. -- go to studentcam.org to view all of the documentaries. >> house republican leaders talk about today's budget built -- budget bill vote. then come up for debate on the 2012 budget. after that, democrats on the 2 vote. >> buck mckeon discusses the

u.s. role in libya, iraq, and afghanistan, changes in defense department leadership, and the national security team. "newsmakers," sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> the house of representatives has approved their 2012 budget plan. we will show you the floor debate on that resolution in a moment. prior to that, house speaker john boehner met with voters to discuss the budget plan. the budget come introduced by paul ryan, faced a series of votes on amendments that sought to replace it with alternate plans, including one proposal supported by a group of conservative republicans. the alternatives were defeated on the floor. the speaker was tried by other members of the republican leadership. it is about 10 minutes. >> we will pass paul rent post a budget. congratulations to paul and members of the budget committee for a job well done.

we all know that cutting spending will reduce some of the uncertainty. i am just hopeful that the president will begin to get serious about the long-term fiscal crisis our country is facing. it needs to be dealt with now. we owe it to the american people. we owe it to our kids and grandkids to begin to cut spending and begin to transform these programs so we can save medicare, medicaid, and social security. i am hopeful that the president will take his job as seriously as we are taking hours. >> morning. there has been a lot of coverage that all of you have been writing about about the drama of this place.

what i can tell you, our conference is united. we are united around the fact that we have got a budget and a plan on the floor of the house today that speaks to our seriousness with which we are approaching the problems facing this country. the budget is typically the toughest vote for members during any congress. we will have today, because of the hard work of chairman ryan, his committee, and the whip, a resounding vote on this budget of support. we are united in cutting spending. we are uniting in promoting growth. we are united in the fact that we don't believe that we should be raising taxes in this tough economy. all of these things set us apart from members in the caucus from the other side of the aisle. today is another example of how the house has changed. prior to it coming to the floor,

it was not even read. today, we will take up a budget that takes up the basic things the house should do. this house has not done it in quite some time. it is not a budget just to pass along more one that will be a political gain. this is about policy, job growth and energy policy. it puts america on a path that marked 2011 the year of the great american comeback. no longer do we worry about what we will say to history. today's historical. yesterday, we cut billions. today, we cut trillions. >> when it comes to growing the economy and addressing the debt, the answer is really quite simple, to cut spending. today, the house republicans are coming forward with a bold plan, introduced by paul ryan, that cuts $6 trillion over the next

10 years and actually put us on a path to pay off the debt in its entirety. what kind of response from the of the side of the aisle? it is the same old scare tactics. among them, scaring our seniors. they're calling for increased taxes at a time when our economy continues to struggle. i think it is appropriate that we consider and ask ourselves the question, do we want to be spending more peak reaches more money on the government, or do we want to be spending more money on our families? >> i am proud to be here today, proud of chairman ryan and the choppy it has done, proud to be a part of the budget committee that has drafted this late bill that is going to put us on the path to prosperity. we all know that one of the things, two things the american public are concerned about is spending too much, get us back on the track of bringing our country to prosperity, and the

second thing is jobs. this bill addresses those issues. i am proud to place my vote in favor of this bill. >> if we want to create jobs, if we want to save our children from bankruptcy, we have to quit spending money we don't have. we have to quit borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese, and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. the path to prosperity will help us create jobs. it will save the social safety net programs, programs that have been a great comfort to my parents and grandparents, yet are morphing into a full ponzi scheme for my third grade daughter and my first grade son. that is why this vote is so important, to save trillions of dollars for the american people, to save our social safety net programs for future generations,

to create jobs for our unemployed fellow citizens. i will celebrate the vote this afternoon for the path to prosperity budget. >> questions? >> you expected a backlash from constituents? >> i think it is pretty clear that if we don't make -- don't make changes to these programs that they won't exist. the fact is that they're responsible plan put forward in the path to prosperity will reform these programs and make sure that they are around for the long term. understand, the greatest danger that america faces today is doing nothing. >> mr. speaker? yesterday, president obama was in chicago. he reflected on some private conversations you had about negotiations. [inaudible] >> i did not see his remarks.

i think you mentioned it. >> is there any concern about the political consequences of this vote? [inaudible] >> i think it is important for our members to go home and talk about it, the crisis that we face, and the fact that the changes being proposed would not affect one senior citizen in america, not one. anyone 55 years and older will not be affected by any of these changes. if you are 54 and younger, those americans understand that if we don't make changes, programs won't be there. these are important programs for tens of millions of americans, and transforming them so there will be around for our kids and grandkids is as important as anything we can do here. >> [inaudible]

>> listen. we have had commissions. nobody has ever paid much attention. the president did not pay attention to the deficit- reduction commission. we will no more in the future. >> have you seen or read the plan? what do think of the plan? >> i have not looked at all the details. i believe the plan put forward by paul ryan and the budget committee is the strongest step we can take today. and we are going to take that step. thanks. >> one alternative to the budget was the republican study committee, which made even more cuts in order to balance the budget in 10 years. a simple majority was needed to pass. during the vote, democrats who

voted no began switching their votes to "present." the threshold for passage of the amendment, which would have replaced paul run's plan, was lowered. that put republicans who voted yes or present in a difficult position. if they did not switch their vote, the budget would pass. much of the conference did not want that to happen. voting against the plan was also politically risky, since conservative activists backed that plan over representative brian's proposal. finally, enough republicans switched votes to kill the amendment 199-136. at least 57 of the 176 members either voted against the conservative groups budget or voted "present."

>> mr. westman. no for mr. westman. mrs. mcmorris rogers. no for mrs. mcmorris rogers. mr. clyburn.

mrs. bonomask. mr. rothman. opt no or present. mr. paschrel. opt no or present. the chair: on this vote the yeas are 120.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 119. the nays are 136. the amendment is not adopted. >> that vote came following a series of votes. those alternatives were defeated. now the floor debate on the rhine and budget resolution. during this debate, some spectators caused a disruption

in the gallery and were arrested by capitol police. and in all, nine people were arrested, three more outside. this is 50 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to first start by thanking the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, and the entire budget staff and members on the house side. >> mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. conversations please cease, clear the aisles, bring your conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: i'd also like to thank the democrat members on the budget committee as well. what we are taking up today is the point of where this country goes. because this debate has taken

on for quite sometime there is not one person that's not watched the news and watch the clock of our debt, $14 trillion. i want you all to imagine for one moment, just imagine for one moment what the country would hold in the dream if that clock was zero. what could we invest in? what could we build and what would our children become? but because that clock does not say zero and that clock continues to climb in the wrong direction, that's why we are here today. but it is a good t because today is the day that we turn that clock back around. we have a plan and a path to osperity that will create jobs even those on the outside they said would be more than one million jobs. a plan that will make us energy independent, but a plan that does something that the rest of america has to do, tightening our belts.

so today when we come and have to put our cards in the voting card, i want you to think of one thing, today could be the day that we create the great america comeback. or it could be the day where america goes to thlong fade into history. but the floor is made of up a micros could much of america and the -- microcosm of america and america knows we have to control this situation we're in. so today a yes vote is for jobs, for energy independence and a new path to prosperity and i yield back. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which is in contra inventioof the laws and rules of thhouse. the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to th gallery.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we are turning back the clock. we're turning back the clock on progress and we're turning back the cck on -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention with the rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove the persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order. the gentleman from maryla. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. cirman. the chair: the house will be in order. the committee will be in order.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. what the republican budget does is turn back the clock on a fair deal for the american people. every person in this body today loves this great nation of ours and believes it's a special place. we have to maintain the exceptionalism of this country. we see different paths and make diffent choices to accomplish that goal. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore

order to the gallery. the gentleman from illinois state his point of order. >> mr. speaker, my question is about the chairfication of the rules. mr. jackson: the rules also for our visitsing guests allow the sergeant at arms to clear the chamber if necessary. is that correct, mr. speaker? the chair: it is within the authority of the chair to clear the gallery. mr. jackson: i thank the speaker. i would just encourage those to continue the civil conversation we're having about a very difficultonversation in our country. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. if i -- mr. jackson: point of order, mr. speaker. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in

contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant of arms will remove those and restore order and would remind all those that are liening that the chair has the authority to clear the gallery. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to how mu time remains? very seriously, mr. chairman, if -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we all agree, we all agree we have to act now to put in place a plan to reduce our deficits -- mr. chairman, point of order. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeanat arms will remove those responsible and restore order in the gallery.

the committee will be in order. committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order.

the chair: the gentleman from maryland may proceed. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to begin my remarks from the beginning. the chair: is there ox? seeing none, the gentleman may proceed -- is there objection? seeing none, the gentleman may proceed. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleagues. as i said, nobody doubts that every person in this chamber loves this country and wants to do the right thing. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will restore order to thgaery. the committee will be in order.

the chair: the committee will come to order. thehair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm tempted to reserve my time and yield it back to the other -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in

contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant of arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the chair makes this announcement for purposes of possible prosecution. the gentleman from maryland may proceed. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, i was tempted to reserve my time and allow my colleague to proceed but as i understand that the chamber is now quiet, let me begin where i left off. and say that all of us agree, nerve this tchame chamber agrees -- chamber agrees we need to put in place a plan to reduce our

deficit in a predictable steady manner. the question throughout this debate has been not whether but how do that. and as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort requirea balanced approach. and the republican plan sily fails on that score. and that's what the co-chairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission said. they said it, quote, falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach needed for a responsible plan. and when you peel off the layers, what you find is the republican plan is not bold. it's just the same old tired formula we've seen before, providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of america, except this time it's dressed up with a

lot of sweet-sounding talk of reform. but at the end it's the same old ideolocal agenda except this time on steroids. to govern is to choose. each of us is sent here to make difficult choices. and the choices that are made in the republican plan, we believe, are wrong for america. we do not believe it's courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests when we're slashing investments in our kids' education, scitific research and critical investments in the future. we don't think it's bold to provide another, another tax break to millionaires while ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for ever-rising health care costs. we do not believe it's visionary to reward corporations that ship

american jobs rather than americ products overseas while we're terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of americans right here at home. and we don't think it's brave to give governors a blank check of federal taxpayer dollars and then a license to cut suppor for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and poor kids. and we don't think it's fair to raise taxes on middle income americans to pay for additional tax breaks for the folks at the very top. yet those are the choices that are made in the republican budget. where is the shared sacrifice? we have american men and women putting their lives on the line in iraq, in afghanistan, while others hide their income in the

caym islands, in switzerland, and refuse to pay theifair share to support our national efforts. and that is why the bipartisan commission, among other reasons, said that the republican plan is just not balanced. it's not. let's say no to the republican plan, let's say yes to finding a balanced way to reduce our deficits in a wayhat protects the values and priorities of the american people and in a way that gets our economy moving and america back to work. with that i rerve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairma at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house republican conference, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. chaian, earlier this week "usa today" reported that we have the fewest participants in our work

force than at any time in 30 years, and my democratic colleagues announce their plan to increase taxes $1.5 trillion on our economy, much of it on our small businesses. e congressional budget office has announced that medicare is going broke in 2020, and my democratic colleagues aounce their plan to double down on the rationing of health care for our seniors. the congressional budget office -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravenges of the rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will restore order to the gallery. the gentleman may proceed. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, the congressional budget office has announced that social security will go broke in 2037, and my democratic colleagues

have announced this is not a problem, we're ready to implement the 22% benefit cut that's already in our statute. survey after survey shothat our fellow citizens believe that their children, their children will be worse off than they are, a yet my democrat colleagues announce their plan to add $9.1 trillion to the national debt. mr. chairman, it's time to quit speing money we don't have. it's time to quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese, and then send the bill to our children and grandchildren. the republican budget will help us create jobs with fundamental tax reform in preventing these tax increases. it will save our social safety net programs, programs that have been a great comfort to my parents and grandparents before our eyes are morphing into ponzi schemes for their

third grade daughter and first grade son. mr. chairn, t republican budgetill put us on the path to pay off the national debt. mr. chairmani heard from one of my constituents recently. he said i have never been ashamed of anhing i have done in my life except leaving this in the hands of my kids. i written them a heart felt apology when they get old enough to understand what the government did to them. mr. chairman, i have a message for mr. calhoun. put that letter away. house republicans are going to stand for tyler and caitlin. we are going to put america back to work. we're going to save the social safety net and preserve the american dream for ourselves and our prosperity. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair:he gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it's hard to see how someone

would define saving the social safety net by ending the medicare guarantee for seniors, by slashing medicaid by over $750 billion, a program that disproportionately helps seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals. it's reallhard to understand that is preserving the social safety net. ireminds me of that strange statement we once heard that you have to destroy the village in order to save it. now, let's understand what happens under this budget to medicare. this budget ends the medicare guarantee for seniors. it doesn't reform medicare. it deforms and dismantles it because it forces seniors off of the medicare pgram into the private insurance market. and it does nothing as it dumps the seniors into the private

insurance market to control the rate of increase in health care costs. and instead it transfers to the seniors all those risks and all those costs. seniors will pay a lot more while the insurance companies will get all their medicare payroll taxes, they'll get a bonanza out of this thing but seniors will be left holding the bag. if your voucher amount -- call it whatever you want -- is not sufficient to pay for the increased cost, you eat it. and we saw earlier the fact that by the year 2022 seniors will have to pay more than $6,000 above what they would have had to pay under the regular medicare program. if your doctor's not on a priva plan that you could avoid, tough luck. this is rationing health care byncome, nothing more, and i want to say something just to clear the record one more time. we keep hearing that they're

offering niors exactly what members of congress get. it simply is not true. what members of congress get is what's called a fair share deal. i encourage my colleagues on all sides of the aisle just to look at the federal employees benefit plan and you look in the office of personnel that says this formula is known as the fair share formula because it will maintain a consistent level of government contributions as a percentage of program costs regardless of what plan the enrollees elect. and it says that the government contribution equals the lesser of 72% of the amounts o.p.m. determines programwide or 75%. the fact is that members of congress get a fair share formula. the republican budget does not gi a fair share formula to

seniors on medicare. it just doesn't. in fact, the way it saves money is to give them an unfair deal. it unconnects the support we give to seniors from rising health care costs. that's why seniors will end up paying so much more and more and more because you make the savings. health care costs are going up like this and the support, if you want to call it support, it iseally not, coming om the medicare program from the federal govnment, is going like this. that's why the seniors are having to eat those additional costs. at's what the republican budget does at the same time they do provide additional tax breaks for the very folks -- the folks at the very top. and if you want to get rid of some of the junk in the tax code you can support the democratic plan because we got rid of subsidies for the oil companies, we got rid of those perverse tax incentives to

reward corporations that are shipping american jobs instead of american products overseas. if you want to start with tax reform, vote for the democratic plan. those are the choices we made, not ending the medicare guarant. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor. the chair: the geneman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the chairman, and i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, for his outstanding eadehip and all the hard work he's shown in leading this effort to put together a budget for this house. i also want to commend the hard work of his memberand the committeeor bringing this forward. mr. chairman, the federal government is broke. we borrow nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. our debt is more than $14

trillion, and it's averaging yearly to trillion-dollar deficits. we simple -- simply cannot afford spending the money we don't have and we must simply bring down the debt. now, for years this house, including legislators both sides of the aisle, has kicked the can down the road. americans were led to believe that we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we dot have and that there would be no consequences. and when it came to fostering an environment where american business could compete in the global economy, we became complacent. this must stop. it's time to be honest with the american people. mr. chairman, we stand at a crossroads. before us lies two different paths.

one defined by crushing debt, slow growth and diminished opportunity, and one defined by achievent, innovion and american leadership. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the geneman is correct. the committee is not in order. conversations will be suspended. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. chairman. by demonstrating courage and directly confronting our challenge at this critical moment, we can fulfill the promise of america and pass on to our children a nation that offers everyone a fair shot at earning their success. the house republican budget is an honest, fact-based proposal that deils our vision for managing down our debt and growing our way back to prosperity. first, we will stop spending money that we don't have.

this budget cuts nonsecurity dicretionary spending to below 2008 levels and freezes it for five minutes. overall, we reach $6.2 trillion in savings against the president's budget. second, we'll lead where the president has failed by finally addressing our insolvent entitlement programs. we know that these programs are the biggest drivers of our debt and the congressional budget office acknowledges that if we don't take action these important safety net programs will go broke. we cannot afford to ignore these -- this oncoming fiscal train wreck anlonger. while it may be seen by some as politically risky, we republicans are willing to lead because, to be frank, complacency is not an option. to be clear, our plan will not touch benefits for today's

seniors and those nearing retirement. for those of us 54 and below it calls for reforms that will restructure medicare and medicaid to ensure that these safety nets will still be there for those who need it, not for those who don't. unlike the lofty outline the president gave in his speech this week, our budget is not a political document. we do not dream up imaginary savings and dodge specifics. in an effort to lull people into the belief that they can actually get thin for nothing. our budget is a concrete plan for getting our fiscal house in order, and we do not resort to tax increases on the very small businesses and job creators we need to put america back to work.

bringing down the debt sends a message to american families. it sends a message to business men and women, to entrepreneurs and to investors. it gives them the confidence that they won't face a future plagued by inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates. we understand that cutting spending alone is not enough. that's whyur budget calls for pro-growth policies to get our economy growing and to get people back to work. families and small business people are struggling, and today, tax day, millions of them will send their hard-earned money to uncle sam. the last thing we should be asking them to do is to send yet again more. instead, our budget calls for a more competitive tax system that will encourage the economy to grow, create jobs and spur investment in the private sector.

we call for the end of crony caitalism that allows privileged industries gain competitive advantage in our tax code, and we call for a more simple system that lowers rates for all but make sure that everyone pays their fair share. mr. chairman, with this budget house republicans are changing the culture in washington from one of spending to one of savings. finally, mr. chairman, america will see that it can get its fiscal hse in order after years of mismanagement. we are filly doing what families and small business people have been doing for years, tightening the belts and arning how to do more with less. again, mr. chairman, i thank chairman ryan and his committee for their outstanding leadership, and i urge my colleagues to support this

resolution. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: may i inquire of the gentleman from maryland, he has just minimum self? mr. van hollen: we have another speaker. mr. ryan: o at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to -- mr. van hollen: we have another speaker -- one more in addition to myself. mr. ryan: why don't you take one then? mr. van hollen: how many -- mr. ryan: we have the right to close. and we have just two more speakers on our side. how many do you have? mr. van hollen: we have two more. mr. ryan: all right. you'll do two together then. ok. at this time, mr. chairman ucks i'd like to yield one minute to the speaker of the house, mr. boehner. the chair: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: i'm glad we got that resolved. the american people understand

that we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. our national debt has now surpassed $14.2 trillion. it's on a track to eclipse the entire size of our economy. and this massive debt that we're incurring hurts private sector job creation, eroding confidence, spreading uncertainty amongst employers big and small, discouraging private investment in our economy that is sorely needed in order for us to create jobs. this debt is also a moral threat to our country. in my opinion it is immoral to rob our children and grandchildren's future and leave them beholden to countries around the world who buy our debt. we have a moral ligation to speak the truth and to do something about it. yesterday we took the first step in beginning to address this

massive debt by passing legislation that would reduce our deficit by $315 billion over the next 10 years. it was an imperfect bill, but it was a positive step that has cleared the decks and allowed to us focus on cutting trillions of dollars, not just billions. and chairman ryan and the members of the budget committee have done aexcellent job of putting together a budget that's worthy of the american people. this budget will help job creation today, lift the crushing burden of debt that threatens our children's future and preserve and protect programs like medicare and medicaid. and most importantly the budget shows families and small businesses that were serious about dealing with america's spending illness so we can put our country on a path to prosperity. the ryan budget sets the bar for the debate going forward. president obama d an

opportunity to match it. unfortunately he gave a partisan speech about the need for more spending, more taxing and more borrowing. he said he must -- he wants to target our debt problem through a so-called debt failsafe. but exempts e major entitlement programs that account for most of the long-term debt problems. and he proposed yet other commission, though he ignored the recommendations of this last one. instead of offering serious solutions, the president asked ngress to raise the debt limit without addressing whington's spending problem. the president wants a clean bill. and the american people will not tolerate it. now, let me be clear. there will be no debt limit increase unless it's accompanied by serious spending cuts and real budget reform.

we deliverethis message on wednesday morning to the predent and we cannot continue to borrow recklessly and dig ourselves a deeper hole and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. the american people are looking for leadership to address this debt crisis. and unfortunately the president has failed to put a serious proposal on the table. and if the president won't lead, we will. no more kicking the can down the road, no more whistling past the graveyard. now is the time to address the serious challenges that face the american people. and we will. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would point out that even if we adopt the republican budget, we're going to have to lift the bt ceiling for years and years to come. so let's not play russian

roulette with the economy and the full faith and credit of the united states government. othe question of jobs, e question of jobs, during the clinton administration we asked the very wealthiest for a little bit more sacrifice than they have today and you know what happened to jobs? 20 million jobs were created during the administration, clinton administration. under the current tax rates, after eight years of george bush, private sector lost 630,000 jobs. mr. chairman, can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: so you see the pattern here, during the clinton administration economic growth booming, 20 million jobs created, during the eight years of the bush administration net loss 653,000 jobs. we need to continue to invest in

this country and make sure that the entrepreneurs of this country can continue to thrive. we need to do this in a balanced way and i would point out that the folks who said that the republican plan this republican plan debate would increase jobs are the same people who predicted that the bush tax cuts would create jobs. that's the blue line is the prediction of the heritage foundation about what that would happen. the red is the reality. if we want to create jobs and reduce the deficit, we need to do it in a balanced way. that's what the fiscal commission said, that's what the democratic plan does. we urge everyone respectfully to vote no on th republican plan. it's the wrong choice for america and with that i yield a minute to the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlan for yielding. i thank him for bringing a budget proposal to the floor

today that is a statement of our national values, about what we care about, investing in our children, honoring our seniors, growing, creating jobs, growing the economy, strengthening the middle class. thank you, mr. van hollen, for your great leadership in that regard. mr. speaker, today we artaking a vote that is very, very important for the health and security of american seniors. a great deal is at stake. d i'm just going to focus on one part of this republican budget. i want to say to my republican colleagues, do you realizehat your leadership is asking to you cast a vote today to abolish medicare as we know it? because that is a vote that we have. this is not about an issue, this is about a value, this is about an ethic. medicare is a core value of our social compact with the american people.

yet this budget shreds that contract which is part of the strength of our country. the republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors. that after a lifetime of work they will be able to depend on medicare to protect them in retirement. this plan, the republican plan, ends medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. it forces them to pay more -- to buy their insurance companies from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits. i want to repeat that. it forces -- the republican plan forces seniors to buy their insurae from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits. as much as $20,000 per year more for some seniors. this plan has the wrong

priorities for our seniors and for all americans. the republican budget, just remember these three things, ends medicare as we know it, gives big tax breaks and subsidies, tens of billions of dollars to big oil. this budget reduces medicaid for our seniors in nursing homes, sending them away from nursing homes while it gives tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. this budget hurts our children's education. inact, it increases the cost of higher education for neay 10 million of our young adults while it gives tax breaks to america's wealthiest families. that's just not fair. it is just not the american way. here we are, yesterday we observed the 100th day of the republican majority in congress. in that 100 days not one job has been created, not one job agenda

is in the works. and what are we doing? we are here to abolish medicare instead. i've heard oucolleagues say that the budget deficit is immoral. it's been immoral forhe eight years of the bush administration and didn't hear anybody say o while we were giving tax cuts to the rich, having two wars unpaid for and ging tax -- prescription drug bills to the private sector. democrats are committed to reducing the deficit, we have demonstrated that we can during the clinton administration and we will. we are committed to strength being -- strengthening the middle class, to growing our economy as we reduce the deficit and to creating jobs. the republican budget fails to do that and the republican budget will not have democratic support. we are here as one of the

previous speakers said, now is the time, now is the time to preserve medicare and democrats will. i urge a no vote on the republican plan. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield myself the remainder of the time and address the house fr the well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: first of all, mr. chairman, i want to thank our stfs. the democratic staff and the republican staff for all of their hard work in getting us to this moment. i want to ask my colleagues a question. i want to ask the american people a question. you know, i remember one of the worst moments i had in congress was the financial crisis of 2008. seems like it was yesterday. we had the treasury secretary, we had the federal reserve chairman coming here talking about crisis. talking about bank collapses. and what came out of that was

really ugly legislation that we passed in a bipartisan basis but no one enjoyed. that crisis caught us by surprise. it was unpredictable. we didn't see it coming. let me ask you this. what if your pesident and your member of congress saw it coming? what if they knew why it was happening, when it was going to happen and, more importantly, they knew what to do to stop it and they had time to stop it but they didn't because of politics? what would you think of that person? mr. chairman, that is where we are right now. this is the most predictable enomic crisis we've ever had in the history of this country. and yet we have a president who is unwilling to lead, we have too many politicians weared about the next election and -- worried about the next election and not worried about the next

generation. every politician in this town, every politician in this town knows we have a debtrisis. they know that we are in danger. we cannot avoid this choice to govern -- choice. to govern is to choose. we are making a choice even if we don't act and that's the wrong choice. in the words of abraham lincoln, we cannot escape history, we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves . will we be remembered as the congress that did nothing as the nation sped toward a presprentble debt crisis and irreversible decline? or will it instead be remembered as a congress that did the hard work of preventing that crisis? the one that chose this path to prosperity. this path to prosperity charts a different course. it gets us off this wrong track.

it achieves four objectives. number one, grow the economy and geteople back to work. number two, fulfill the mission of health and retirement -- fulfill the mission of health and retirement security. we don't want to ration edicare, we don't want to see medicare go bankrupt, we want to save medicare. number three, repair the social safety net. get it ready for the 21st century. we don't want a welfare system that encourages people to stay on welfare, we want them to get back on their feet and into flourishing, self-sufficient lives. so let's reform welfare for people who need it and let's end it for corporate welfare for people who don't need it. number four, let's do the work of lifting this crushing burden of debt from our children. this is what we achieve.

we have a choice of two futures. but we have to make the right choice. we must not leave this nation -- lead this nation into decline. we must not be the first generation in this country to leave the next generation worse off. decline is antithetical to the american idea. america is a nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to equality and defined by limitless opportunity. equal opportunity, upward mobility, prosperity, this is what america is all about. in all chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like america. this budget keeps america exceptional. it preserves its promise for the next generation. colleagues, this is our defining moment. we must choose this path to

prosperity. i yield. >> following the vote, chris van hollen says this is a this the wrong choice. the ranking member and other democratic members of the democratic committee spoke with reporters moments after the house adopted the fiscal 2012 budget resolution by a vote of 235 to 193. four republicans voted against. no democrats voted in favor. this is about 20 minutes.

the question is whether or not we work together, the question is how we do that? we believe the republican plan makes the wrong choice for a couple of reasons. number one, would think it will hurt the fragile economic recovery and put more people out of work at a very fragile time for struggling families throughout the country. number two, we think it makes the wrong choice as to how we produce the that this it, because they choose to provide another round of big tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, for millionaires and others. they choose to keep in place big taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies, which i know everyone knows what the price at the pump up,it is going up and and yet we continue to provide

these companies with these big tax subsidies. we should not be doing that at the same time they are slashing investment in our kids in education, ending the medicare guaranteed, meaning saying to seniors you no longer get to stay in the medicare program. your forced into the market, in your forced to eat the rising cost of health care, so there is no more medicare guaranteed. all the sudden, a payroll taxes for medicare, when that kicks in, will go to the insurance industry. if your support or whatever your to college, it is not sufficient to keep up with the cost, you are out of luck. it is designed to not keep up with the cost of health care. that is how they save money, even as they get tax breaks to millionaires. when it comes to other important efforts like medicaid, like

seniors rely on some individuals with disabilities rely on, poor kids rely on, they slashed up by over $475 billion. instead of saying to the folks at the very top let's go back to the very tax rate that we had during the clinton administration, a time when the economy was roaring and 20 million jobs were created. no, instead of doing that, they ask working people to bear the burden and ask no shared sacrifice of those who have done so well. we'd think this is the wrong direction, wrong approach for america. we will continue to fight this republican plan, and we're confident with the help of the american people we will ultimately defeat it. with that, i want to turn it over to alison schwartz, a terrific member congress from

the state of pennsylvania. >> thank you. thank you for a lot more effort on behalf of the american people. i want to share my agreement van hollen.n hollan we offered an alternative that took seriously the national debt and the deficit, it brings down the deficit, does it in a very different way than the republicans. we will have a balanced approach to bring down the national deficit, because you simply are borrowing too much in spending too much on interest. we will do it in a way that meets the obligation to the american people. i spoke yesterday to a group of seniors and future seniors. one woman who said she was 54-

years-old and has its disabled son on medicaid. she said i am worried for myself, because when i reached the age of 65 i am counting on medicare, and deeply concerned about who will take care of my disabled child who has real needs. all i could say to her is that the hope of the republican budget does not make it into law. that is not good enough for the american people. every day across america we have seniors and families who are concerned about their children and education. we up businesses large and small that want to make the investment in infrastructure and education so that we can be economically competitive. for the future of this country, and for economic growth, we have to turn aside this republican budget and take a more balanced, more reasonable, more balanced

approach. with that, i will turn it over to another senior member of the budget committee. >> thank you. i think the biggest insult to the american people was the republican budget. it is based on total mixology. they base an enormous amount of growth on almost of state-based initiative, state-based idea that if you cut taxes for the very wealthiest americans, you have a limited growth in the economy. -- they base an enormous amount based wth on almfaith- initiatives, faith-based idea that if you cut taxes for the very wealthiest americans come you have a limited growth in the economy. they basically waved a magic wand and say these are the numbers that will store the

economy of the united states. i come from a family of on trip and worse. my father built a big family. both of my brothers have built big companies. i have built a company. any of us will tell your would have told you that raising taxes a small amount on entrepot nor's makes no difference in how they act. -- entrepreneurs makes no difference on how they act. as my brother said, if no one can of for barbecue, it does not matter what my tax rate is. that is where we are as a country. we have spent so much time making sure the top one percent have done well, that we have totally forgotten than 90% who now have less well than the top one present has. we need to develop a fiscal policy that makes sure that we encourage growth in the 90%, not

further infringement of the top 1%. that is what the democratic alternative did, and that is why i believe we must defeat this republican budget, because it is the hope of the american people. with that, i would like to mikeila --uddy michael oetty yield. oing to >> we were the counterpoise to this attack of middle-class america. and i'm really proud of the upper we made to inform the general public. makes no mistake about it, but this republican budget puts an end to medicaid -- medicare. it allows for the continuation of tax responsibility that grows weaker and weaker on millionaires and billionaires,

and allows for oil company handout is to be the theme of the day. these of the wrong choices for america. this is a road to ruin, and we even swerved in the vast tracts to get into medicare as quickly as they could. this will not work. i am proud of the democrats and the voice bay led on behalf of middle-class america during the many days of discussion. we have an alternative plan that would grow jobs. this will reduce jobs by millions. we cannot afford that kind of destruction on the economy. i am proud of everett that democrats are making. -- i am proud of the plan that democrats are making. thank you, everybody. >> let me just say that first of all, i am stand -- proud to stand with my colleagues, and the ranking member chris van hollen and saying that today was

a sad day in our country. today the republicans made a statement that they were willing to break the social contract in our country. it is completely unacceptable to say that just because this does not impact you if you are 55 years and older, to take the generation and throw them under the bus for one that is under 55. this is just unacceptable. we have state senator and prices all across our country. if they had to deal with a plot granted the time of recession when unemployment is highest, that is when medicaid needs to be most flexible. it is unacceptable that my republican colleagues have made a statement to the american people today that today is a social contract. i just want to say that i want to thank god for the senate because i know this will