arrival, as it should be. i know to the american people this plan would be dead on arrival. i am standing here because their people they got up every day, carried a lunch bucket down to meatpacking plants, worked on the railroads to make sure that i had a good education, that i had a safe school to attend, to make sure that we had the basics in life to help communities be strong and vibrant. the budget the republicans just past takes away that underpinning of community, of shared sacrifice, of responsibility to one another to of strong communities. right here in washington, d.c., our founding bothers and mothers shared sacrifice to make sure that we had in this

country an opportunity for everyone to be successful, and in order for people to be successful, they have to have an opportunity to get a good quality education, an opportunity to have their basic health care needs met, shelter, and transportation -- all of that, all of that shared sacrifice is gone and the republican budget. they have made a decision that it is more important to defend resources, to borrow money, to pay interest to give tax breaks to 1% of america. i am pleased to stand here with my colleagues in support of the democratic proposal. and let me conclude with this -- i am going to get on a plane in a couple of hours and see my brother and sister. i am 56. i am going to look at them and say under the republican plan i do not have to worry. my children do not have to worry about my health care into the future.

sari, brother. sari, sister. sari, niece and nephew. you do not know what holds -- you do not know what the future holds for your parents and their health care. i am glad to be on the right side of history and standing up for middle-class families. >> good afternoon. i represent the great state of florida. if you could help me with my favorite signed, there, this beautiful spring day in the nation's capital belies the fact that we have dark days ahead of the republican budget. it is distressing for the hard- working families i represent in florida and all across this great country, that the republican plan destroys medicare. and i think it is a falsehood to say that if you're 55 and older

you will not be affected. because what the republican plan -- this cynical plan does is that it causes medicare to wither on the vine up. if you are in medicare provider and you know it is coming to an end, you don't have great incentives to stay within the medicare initiative. when you combine it with a very significant rationing back of nursing-home care that would happen immediately under the republican budget, seniors today need to be concerned. all american families need to be concerned that the republican plan is ending medicare. medicare is that promise made to hardworking individuals all across this country, that they worked hard all their lives, they would live their retirement years in dignity and insecurity. at the republicans say, enough of that, and toss that by the wayside in a very cynical

attempt to save the tax breaks for the top you percentages in this country, those tax breaks slalom medicare, and that is the choice that was on the table for this budget. it provides a very distinctive -- two very distinct visions for america, one that is optimistic and retrain said -- and retains the social contract. the republican vision for america is pessimistic, it is cynical, it's as to older americans coming you can work hard all of your life, but your neighbors will not be there for your in your older years. and as president obama said the other day, but for the grace of god go i.. who can say that later in life you will not have a heart attack, you will not come down with a chronic condition, your body will not wear out? we're going to fight to save

medicare. the battle lines have been drawn. the vote has been taken then everyone has gone on record. i can tell you that i am very proud that unanimously my democratic colleagues say we're not going to give up on older americans. we will keep that promise that is medicare. thank you, chris van hollen, and all of your colleagues, for your leadership today. >> thank you, kathy. we heard from some republican members on the floor that medicare was socialism. if you go back to the fight over medicare back in 1965, that is what the republicans used in order to try and stop medicare from ever being created. now apparently they are using that term as part of ending the medicare guarantee. we would be happy to answer any questions you've got. >> well as the strategy behind voting present? who came up with that plan?

>> that was a discussion within the democratic caucus. it was an effort to show just how far out the republicans are, the majority of the republicans in their caucus. the me to say coming you have seen two budgets from the republicans, both of which would be a radical change in the direction of this country. as my colleague indicated earlier, it would shatter the social contract in america. any other questions? >> if you could put your political hat back on, how bad of vote you think the republicans took today? >> we encourage some republican colleagues to read the bill. it was clear from some of their comments that they had not read the bill. but the answer your question by way of making this point.

one of their talking points originally was that what they are giving it to seniors is the same health care deal that members of congress get for themselves. just not true. not true. what members of congress have and the federal employees have is what is called a fair share arrangement. what that means is, as the cost of health care and premiums go up, such as the employer share -- the government. some members of congress protect themselves -- so members of congress protect themselves against the rising cost of health care, and yet they are asking seniors to take a raw deal that does not prevent them -- protect them from the rising cost of health care. that is how they make their savings in this bill. i only say that because i would have to ask the american people whether it is a good thing that a member of congress says to

seniors, we're going to give you a lousy deal but keep a good deal for ourselves. >> it would make a public -- an effective political ad. >> i'll leave it to the american people to judge the facts. but this is a wrong turn for america and it really does violate the social contract in so many different ways. and in the medicare guarantee, exhibit a. >> how all this help you regain the house? >> it depends on what the american people decide on this. we want the american people to look at this bill and they can judge for themselves. but as i said, i think the american people recognize that medicare is a program that has served the country well. and to deform and dismantle it and soon say to seniors that you

can no longer choose to stay in the medicare program, you have to go into the private insurance market and face those rising costs, and if your doctor is not on the plan that you can afford with your dwindling little about her or whatever you want to call it, you are out of luck. that is the deal that they have given to the people of america while they have retained a much better deal for themselves as members of congress. any other questions? thank you all very much for joining us. we will keep fighting this republican budget and we are confident that when the american people learn about it, they will help us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [inaudible]

>> today's session in the house was the last day for house chaplain bother coughlan. he served in the position for the last 11 years. john boehner and nancy pelosi took a moment on the floor to pay tribute to his service. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: you our god we praise you, you are the lord, we acclaim you. you are the eternal father, all creation worships you. save your people, lord, and bless your inheritance. govern and uphold these, now and always. day by day we bless u, we

praise your name forer, keep us today, lord, from all sin. have mercy on us, lord, have mercy. lord, show us your love and mercy for we put our trust in you. in you, lord, is our hope and we shall never hope in vain. consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chai without objection, the speaker is recognized. the speaker: i think all of the members should be aware that today is father coughlin's last day as our chaplain after 11 years of service. and i think all of us, not just the members, but the officers and the staff owe a giant debt of gratitude to father dan. he's been an invaluable part of our community. not just with the opening prayer, but his counsel and guidance that he's offered to all of us.

in the house's darkest hours he's been there to gently lead us back to safe haven. in between when things get really noisy around here, he tries to encourage us to stop, find some quiet time, and reflect. he was appointed by speaker hastert 11 years ago. he comes from chicago. where he will return. i'm sure that there's one person that's real happy he's returning. that's his mother who is 96 years young. so father dan, on behalf of the whole house, i want tohank you for yourervice. i know we haven't always been the most cooperative congregation you might have -- i hope that you'll keep this house and the people who serve here in your prayers.

and we will keep you in our. -- in ours. with that i' be happy to yield -- mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield to my colleague from california, ms. pelosi. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. as is very evident by the response to your remarks and prai of father coughlin there is one thing the democrats and republicans in the house of representatives agree on is that god has truly blessed us

with the service of father coughlin as our chaplain for the past 11 years. when we talk about him being our chaplain, it's not just he's the chaplain of the members, he's the chaplain of the staff, the staff for the carpenter that we see in the hall, service employees who are here. we ministers to the needs of all of us here. metimes in a very ma crow way when 9/11 struck -- macroway when 9/11 struck or tucson, an thanks, those kinds of things had an impact on all of us and father was there for us as a group and individually.

we never know what joys or pain our colleagues or our workers here are undergoing or suffering. father coughlin, father dan knows more than most of us and his discretion is something that we all value and respect. father dan has served minister to the needs of the poor with the missionaries of charity in calcutta, india. he has meditated with monks in the monastery and i think he's going to go back and do some of that again. he has been a scholar at the north american college in rome. exchanging ideas there. and he has ministered to the needs of his parishioners and that probably served him best for ministering to the diverse needs of his flock that he shepherds here. we are very, very honored.

last year many of us in a bipartisan way stood up and sang the praise -- it seems so recent, but it was a year ago, and then after that father was honored in illinois for serving as a priest for 50 years, so with all of that -- for some of us it was really a special source of pride although we respect all of our chaplains, but a source of personal pride that he was the firs roman catholic chaplain in the house of representatives and, and showed that he could minister to the needs of all of the members of all faiths here. so, yes, we are very blessed by his service in the congress. are going to miss him a great deal. we wish him well as he goes

forth. the legacy that he left us is one that was not only opening prayer each day to inspire us and lift us to a higher place in our deliberations, but he set an example of civility in the congress, of confidentiality of relationships. he's a great chaplain. we will miss him greatly and we are enormously grateful to him. thank you, father coughlin. the speaker: god be with you. i yield back. >> next house hearing on border

security. after that, house republican leaders talk about the budget vote. then more debate on the 2012 budget. after that, democratic leadership on that vote. >> this week on "road to the white house," donald trump in florida. he speaks as south florida tea party rally. sunday at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now two house subcommittees examine border security and how border patrol operations might be impacted by environmental laws. rob bishop has introduced legislation that would waive rules for border control officers.

the subcommittee also reviewed cooperation between federal agencies in implementing environmental laws in border areas, particularly some less secure areas along the southern border. this is a little over three hours. >> we are ready to start here. some of our college will be joining us. we will see how far we can get in this process. as you all know, there's a change in the schedule today. truly unusual circumstances. we will be interesting for those repeatedly. we apologize for that. we will go over for one vote at the time. no more than a 10 or 15-minute interruption. i will call this hearing to order. the presence of the quorum is

here today. subcommittees on national security, homeland defense, foreign operations are meeting today to hear testimony on how and permit laws and regulations can harm the borderland environment. under the rules, the opening statements will be limited to the chairman and ranking members, when they show up. we can hear from our witnesses more quickly. i will ask unanimous consent to include any other opening statements on the record if submitted by the close of business today. during objection, that will be so ordered. i ask consent for the gentleman from texas, who has asked if he could make a statement, to be our first witness of the day, if he is here. when he gets here, we will interrupt to allow that to take place. that is ordered. i also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pierce, be allowed to join us and introduce one of the witnesses and participate in

this hearing. without objection. so ordered. i will make my opening statement after my colleagues have had a chance to speak. i will recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on homeland defense and foreign operation for his opening statement. >> thank you to my colleague and friend in chairman mr. bishop. we're examining the extent to which federal environmental laws and regulations affect the ability of law enforcement to patrol and secure our borders. we examine the extent to which restrictions placed upon agents are harming the environment. since december of 2006, the drug cartel-related violence in mexico has continued to excellent -- escalate. almost 3000 people were killed in 2007 in mexico. that increased to almost 7000 in 2000. more than 95 covered killed in 2009. by 2010, the number is now over 15,000.

according to reports, most of these crimes occurred within a short distance of the u.s. border towns and americans have also suffered. three law-enforcement officers have been injured or lost their lives in a recent months. out of europe 15, 2011, two agents were both shot in the line of duty. one later died from his injuries. in december 2010, brian terry was fatally shot near tucson while attempting to prevent criminal activity along the border. i was going to show you some of the perot photos. having reviewed those photos, they are so graphic and so disturbing, i worry about sharing them in this format here. the steep increase of violence across the southwest border raises serious concerns for the public and members on both sides of the aisle. department, and security responsible for securing the border. in response to a legal activity

of the southwest border, including illegal activities occurring on federal lands, department of homeland security has increased the amount of agents to resources directed toward preventing smuggling and kidnapping and illegal immigration. despite the increase in resources, the director of homeland security issues that the gao identified holes in our border secure strategy. recently, he testified there are only 129 miles of the roughly 100 -- 1954-mile long thought was border or the border patrol can actually "deter or detect and apprehend illegal entry." let me repeat. only 129 of the nearly 2,000 miles are adequately secure. this is unacceptable. the government should be ashamed. the government is spending billions of dollars on flawed

strategy and must find a better solution. because of the department of homeland security's inability to secure the border and much depends on access to federal land, the department of interior and the department of agriculture entered into a memorandum of understanding. the purpose of this was to guide and facilitate activities on federal land. it sought to ensure the concerns about protecting the environment would be addressed. it emphasized the need for cooperation and timely -- timely responses by land managers to request by the border patrol. they agreed to cooperate and do so "in an expedited manner." a recent report indicated that "cooperation has not always occurred" between the interior and the usda. they will be testifying today on the same panel. border patrol agents in charge of the 16 of the 26 patients

have told the gao that "when they attempt to obtain a permit or permission to access portions of federal land, delayed restrictions have resulted in complying with lan management laws." i support the utmost protection of our environment and multiple uses of public land. we must listen to the border patrol agents to put their lives on the line every day. some agents asserted that delays resulting from laws have "less in the agent's ability to detect undocumented aliens." this is totally unacceptable. and on secure border is a national security threat. as soon as the administration realizes this and act accordingly, the safer we will be. i look for to hearing from witnesses. i appreciate time and effort. many of you have traveled from great distances. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the ranking member on a subcommittee i see on the floor.

he is here with us in spirit. when he arrives, he will be recognized to give an opening statement should you wish to do that. we do have the ranking member from government ops here. i appreciate your joining us. i recognize him for an opening statement. >> i think all the witnesses that will be testifying today. question posed as whether laws prevent the border patrol from staplers securing our borders. the unanimous answer in written testimony from the border patrol, department of interior, department of agriculture, and general accountability office appears to be no. border security and internment lost to richard are not mutually exclusive. let's not make an attempt to make a false choice were none exists. the wilderness act and other laws place restrictions on the border patrol's operations in areas. according to the book of testimony you received today, those restrictions impose a relatively low burden that has

been manage through interagency cooperation. this is not to say there are not serious incursions on our border. drug smugglers and human traffickers continue to use federal land to perpetrate illegal activities. while some of these lands are used to the message from today's hearing is that the border patrol believes it can effectively achieve its border security mission and be responsible stewards of the environment of the same time. the department of the interior and the department of agriculture agree with the gao, which has studied this extensively. this committee is no stranger to the challenges posed by securing the border and the violence in mexico. the committee held several hearings examining the security threat posed by drug cartels in mexico and federal strategy to confront those geladas.

over 30,000 citizens of mexico have been killed in the last four years. there are many real challenges that underline our mission to secure borders. environmental restrictions are not one of them. i look forward to working with you to tackle the real challenges confronting border security. thank you. >> i thank you for opening statements. i am prepared to give mine at this time. i am glad we are here on this process, especially that we will be joined by couple of people, the representative will be here soon. representative deferreds, who we pray for too soon join us, and representative pierce, who has joined us, represent the areas that are most impact. i appreciate their significance in their problem as they try to tell constituents why they're inundated with a problem that has solutions we could find here

in washington if we wished. the issue is illegal entrants into this country. the bottom line has to be that it is unacceptable, even one is unacceptable. what is happening today as unacceptable. homeland security, the forest service, and department of interior all have a responsibility. what you're doing is not working. the status quo was unacceptable. if things are getting better, and reports that in some areas it is, that is positive. it is not good enough. it is not as people coming across searching for a better life. what is the concern is the people who are coming across the border are the drug cartels were destroying the lives of our kids with drugs. they are prostitution rings. they're people being assaulted and raped on american land. that is unacceptable. american citizens living in this area are being threatened and killed. that is simply unacceptable.

if i could have mapped two up there, which shows all the regions that have been coming here. some of those are doing very well. the number of people who have been apprehended in maine, 56. canadians from nova scotia are not coming here to take our hockey jobs. about a half-million people have been apprehended. those are the ones we caught, not those who came in. quarter of a million of all those went through the tucson sector by itself. 51% of those coming into this country are coming through that sector. no wonder you can understand why arizona reacted the way it did and pass legislation. that is almost 1000 people a day being apprehended through their sector. tucson is not all of arizona. yuba is there. why is that the access of choice for those coming in?

this is the border land. it is 100 miles above the border. everything read on that map is owned by the federal government. in places where we are having success, there's not much red. in places where the problem exists, it is red. 97% of all apprehensions are coming on federal lands. when we built the fence, 36 loss or waived in order to build a fence. one makes the assumption that those 36 may have a reason. the problem border patrol has in securing the borders right now. department of interior, i'm sorry. your response as ben to set up a sign telling americans not to go on american property. the outbreak of these signs was major randy pulled them down, which is right. the attitude has not changed. a sovereign country has to control its sovereign land and we are not doing that. that is simply unacceptable.

it is still on safe for americans to go into america. that is unacceptable. a representative from homeland security will basically tell us things are fine. we're getting along. we're improving. i don't buy it. i don't buy it because the logical assumption of that testimony means border patrol is not competent, and i don't believe that for one second. i believe they are competent, but there are frustrations with the department of interior and the forest service. if i could have number four? these are the old barriers we used to have along the border. they have been removing -- removed. one land manager uses these borders to stop the border patrol from entering into areas he did not wish them to enter. that is unacceptable. the border patrol can do their job that they are allowed to do their job.

one senator introduced a bill for new mexico and recognized that there should be a five-mile strip along the border and of which border patrol had total access. he had the right idea. he had the numbers wrong. five months doesn't cut it. reports the camp was, people of taken one sentence out of context, 22 of the 26 stations said things were fine. unaffected by land management practices. if you read the entire report, you would see what they said is, in a course, no portions of these stations jurisdiction has border security status, such as management or monitored, downgraded as a result of land management walt -- laws. that is not the same thing. 17 out of 26 of the station said they did have monitoring delays and portions of programs for delay. 14 out of 17 could not get waivers from land managers in a timely manner.

the majority said cooperation has not always occurred. that is not accurate. some managers monitor areas and on a routine basis. some document on an ad hoc basis. the statement can take over 75 days to accomplish. the wilderness restriction cause the problem. five out of seven said the endangered species act causes a problem. in arizona, it took four months to get permission to moving mobile surveillance system. the reason for it, the manager has limited staff with numerous other priorities. this was not important to him. it took six months in arizona to get permission to improve roads the border patrol needed to conduct patrols. eight months in another area to allow improvements for transportation to move an underground sensor that did not take place. in some places, it's simply never happened. border agent told us maintenance was needed for five routes and

two surveillance system sites within the station, but they did not receive permission. without roads, they could not conduct routine patrols or reached the site for mobile system, even in an area of high illegal traffic. the agent sent one additional road on an east-west corridor close to the border would be effective to combat the 8000- miles of trail that undocumented workers have produced. in another area, they approved for helicopter landings. that is great. everything was delayed until 2011. contrasting two previous examples when they requested additional access, the management land manager determined that additional border patrol access would not improve the protection of the resources. so what happened as they put surveillance on land owned by the state of arizona and created a three-mile hole in the

surveillance for undocumented workers. the lan manager requested border patrol to find a different location because of restrictions. he explained border patrol did not demonstrate to him that the proposed tower was critical. he made the final decision, not the expert on the border patrol area. the memo of understanding is not working. i'm glad you're becoming chummier with the memo of understanding. it is not a solution. it is a process. the process the numbers showed you is not working. the results of that memo are unacceptable. the memo was failed. it was designed to fail and prohibit the border patrol from doing their job. the memo confirms what people on the ground have contended in washington has denied. we need to regain control of orleans. national security has to be our

number one issue. from bill clinton, it is national security, stupid. border patrol should not be stopped or inhibited in anything they try to do. the internment is being trashed by illegal entry. it is not national security that is threatening our and burn it. it is the lack of national security threatening our burn it. the department of interior must have better priorities of human life as a higher priority over what they are looking at with blinders on. you will hear a lot of spin today, especially from the next panel of witnesses. one may hope that when you have quick spinning, it will be facing toward the front. what is happening right now is not acceptable. it has to change. i appreciate your patience in that. you will have another opening statement. i want to thank you. we previously recognized mr. reyes.

we noted you would be the first speaker for us. your timing is impeccable. you came at just the right time to give your statement. we appreciate the service on the history you bring to us as one of those border patrol workers that if such a great job in an area where you were allowed to do a great job. you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking members, thank you for giving me an opportunity to be here to lend my comments to the very important work that your committees are doing. one of the first point i want to make and _ as often times, -- underscore is often times, we

represent border district, camera -- and those representing border areas get frustrated because decisions made here, particularly of the federal level, often impact the communities and the relationship between communities and the customs and border protection and other law-enforcement agencies that have very important work to do to secure the nation. i want to tell you how much i appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. i actually was part of a field hearing in texas where the community got a chance "to testify and also to observe a hearing. last week, the committee on

homeland security on the senate side, senator lieberman's committee, asked my county judge to give testimony. she was up here, and made a number of points i want to reinforce here this morning. first of all, i represent the safest city in the united states of over 500,000 people or more. it is interesting to note that five of our border cities, which include the two largest, el paso and san diego, and laredo and tucson, are on the top-10 list of safest cities in the country. the reason i mention that is because oftentimes, the rhetoric does not match what we are experiencing, those of us who live on the border.

the border is not a lawless region. the border is not an area that is out of control. i cannot say enough about the work that the border patrol is doing. i cannot say enough about the cooperation that exists to make sure that border communities are secure, feels secure, and our job is to make sure the facts come out. when we talk about the border region, i would strongly recommend that you do a series of hearings. in particular, may be in those cities on the safest cities in the country. i speak from a perspective of having spent 26 and a half years working the border, working my way up from an agent, working five years in the del rio area, and then being chief in two

other areas, south texas and al pass so, where i was born and raised -- and el paso, where i was born in rates. i want to make sure that as the only member of congress with that background that i get an opportunity to provide what i feel is very important, and that is accurate information about what is going on. i don't expect people to take my word for it. i welcome -- we have had a number of hearings that i have joined, this committee and other committees, that have that responsibility to take testimony, but most importantly, to go out there and see the work that is being done by our border patrol agents, see the work that is being done in concert with other agencies, federal, state, and local, which is very important, the cooperation that

exists. i wanted to give one example of how much cooperation as important by citing a recent issue that existed in my community. that was the -- there is one last section of fencing that needs to take place, right near the downtown area. in that area is also the water source that is literally 12 minutes away from the water treatment plant that when it was initially proposed to fence that area, it would have put that water sores south of the fencing. thanks to the cooperation of customs and border protection, consulting with the community, we came up with a compromise that we are going to close off that amount so that people who

are intending on may be taking some kind of a terrorist act against the united states, don't have access to that water system. we will close it off. border patrol will get the fence and it will also protect infrastructure that the city was concerned about. that is critical in controlling the water runoff during storms. those are the kinds of cooperative and consultation efforts that make sense in our communities. i guess today, i would ask that the decisions that are recommended from this committee be done with that spirit in mind. we often times want to make decisions, for instance, putting

up a very expensive fence in areas that really don't need it, in areas where we can monitor electronically, or agents have time to respond, where intrusions' are known. they're the experts. i retired from border patrol over 15 years ago. i still am very much interested and keep in contact, and proud to say that not just my former colleagues, but my friends, and we need to do everything we can to support them both because it is america's first line of defense. most importantly, because the border patrol works on the theory that it is always better to consult with the local community, because they are part of that community, so that both

priorities are reached, both the enforcement priority and the community priority, as i just spoke about with the example i gave you. the last point i want to make is that when i retired, we had a little -- 5000 agents in the old border patrol. we have done a very good job of increasing the size of the border patrol. today there are over 20,000 agents. there is one area i'm concerned about that we have not focused on and i hope we get a chance to do that. that is at the ports of entry. today, we're seeing alarming statistics of the amounts of narcotics that are being intercepted at those parts of entry -- ports of entry. across the nation, those ports of entry are carrying 31% up to 38% vacancy ratio in their

ranks. that means many different things, including the fact that it creates a vulnerable environment for our country, but it also means a long waiting line for people wanting to cross the border. it also means that, based on statistics we're seeing, more narcotics are coming through those ports of entry because that work force is overwhelmed. i hope we get a chance to have hearings on increasing the size of officers at those ports of entry. i know that when you -- if you ask border patrol this morning, they can tell you the same thing and verified the fact that it does not make sense to have control between the ports of entry and not at those ports of entry that account for millions subentries every single day

thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify before you this morning. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> we will be respectful of your time. does anyone have questions for the gentleman from texas? >> thank you for being here. i know you care as much about this issue as anybody. from your perspective, the bordeaux -- the border patrol agents are putting their lives on the line. they're going into inhospitable areas. people that they did not know they are trying to comprehend -- apprehend. can you look someone in the eye and say, if you do this on foot, you will be equally as

secure and effective as you would if you were in a vehicle? that is my concern. part of the testimony that we are about to hear, on a federal land at any time, patrol on foot or on horseback. i cannot imagine that someone -- i cannot imagine looking at somebody in the eye and say, you cannot use the vehicle here. you guys go out on foot. is that we should be telling our border patrol agents? >> not so much on foot. my experience has always been, border control is a hearty bunch. they love patroling on horseback there are a number of reasons for that. not only does it provide quick access in a very rough terrain, but it also allows them to have

a higher perspective of whatever is ahead of them. they can ride up on groups of people much faster and much safer. if you rely -- remember what we are talking about are the areas that you just mentioned. they are rough terrain, a very uneven terrain. yes, we have things like four- wheel drive. >> some of it is -- is not all mountainous. >> no, it is not. from my perspective, from my experience, it makes sense to give the tools to the border patrol that they need trade in some of these areas, what they

want are the ability to patrol on horseback. >> who should make that decision? should not be the decision of the border patrol to say this is how we will secure our folks? >> blog says that the border patrol has the right -- the law says the border patrol has the right of access anywhere within 25 miles of the international border. they have that authority. >> i wish that was true grit my understanding is that that is not true. my understanding is that that is on private property, not on public land. >> they cannot do that. >> it does not have to deal with the fact that they will have somebody to risk their lives on this public property. >> i've been there, i have seen that area.

i've talked to the chiefs that have been in charge. they do not have a problem of access because -- at least the one's i've talked to -- because they do patrol that area effectively. they have the same concerns that german bishop articulated. -- that chairman ed bishop articulated break from an environmental perspective, the plastic bags and all the stuff that undocumented people leave, it is an issue for them. i access and the ability to patrol -- access and the ability to patrol -- from my experience and from talking in those areas, they did not -- they are not denied access to the area. >> it was in my scope of time. the point i am trying to drive,

is that border patrol should be making those types of decisions whether or not they use the wars or fought or a vehicle. that -- whether they used a horse or football or a vehicle. >> did not discount the fact that the chiefs that are in charge of those areas have the best interest in mind. one of the things that i have learned through my experience is that no one is more attuned to the surrounding, to respecting nature. one of the biggest complaint that i have heard is about the refuse that is left behind by undocumented people. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> -- i yield back. >> thank you for joining us this

morning. i do respect the fact that you have more experience than any member of congress. you have been a member and have been focused on this area to be in touch with people. that strikes me -- you have the experience and we still want to tell you what works. what i am hearing from you is that it might touch up on a conflict with the security issue, that has been your experience that the agencies involved have been able to work it out pretty reasonably. >> that is correct. >> the memorandum of understanding between different agencies is that when there is an area of exigency, the border patrol does have the ability to use of motorized vehicles. >> that is correct. nowhere on the border under

emergency situation is the border patrol precluded from doing whatever they need to do. >> there was a questioning moment ago, makes a decision? we have laws in this country. those prevail. in my right? you find the agencies try to implement those laws. >> too. >> the memorandum -- the memorandum of understanding is a way to reconcile any conflicts that may appear in those laws. the agencies have been able to effectively resolve any issues or problems for the most part? >> that has been my experience, yes. >> the border patrolmen access land by motorized vehicles are otherwise in emergency situations and that seems to cover it ground when it comes up to a final decision. >> you know, you have to remember that there are times

when you have an airplane crash or some other kind of emergency and an agent is shot, the border patrol chase are not going to allow anything to interfere with being able to get in there and do what ever needs to be done to secure the area and take care of whatever officer is injured. >> it appears that our laws do not interfere with that. >> they do not. >> has it been your experience that there are other factors involved sometimes causing difficulty for agents or others to get control over a particular area? >> the chief in this sector knows that area best.

he is in constant communication with both the agent in charge of whatever is in the station you are describing, and decisions are made both in terms of being able to secure the area and how they would respond and with what they would respond. that is the chief cause responsibility, to make sure that in the case of a national emergency or an emergency affecting an officer's safety or the safety of a rancher or an undocumented person whose life is in jeopardy, they will make whatever decision needs to be made and have that access. >> how many years were you a member of the border patrol? >> 26.5. >> 15 years in congress.

how many instances are you aware of where an environmental law was an insurmountable in panama to the border patrol doing its work? >> i cannot -- insurmountable impediment. >> i cannot think of any. border patrol agents work very closely in texas. their job is to make sure that cattle does not come over from mexico because of the kinds of diseases. border patrol looks -- works very closely. i worked with them when i was an agent. we work for a closely with the parks and wildlife people. on occasion, the department of public safety and park rangers

in general in the areas that they have a presence. when you are wearing a badge and you have that responsibility, you want to make sure that to the extent possible that you have both knowledge of who is there and understanding that they are going to come to your assistance and they wrote it -- and you will go to their assistance because of the environment and the hostility of the area. or either a drug smuggler or others that might not know the difference between the board approached rigid border patrol agent and a park ranger. >> thank you for coming this morning and sharing your experience. >> my good friend from michigan, do you have any questions? >> i am promised again and we

border on canada. we have to sometimes look at our northern border also. generally, those who try to get into michigan come in by plane from europe. one person they caught trying to bring a plane into detroit. but by water. i've been impressed between the cooperation with the border patrol and the forest service and coast guard. three very important. we have to encourage that cooperation. sometimes laws have to catch up and change circumstances. if there is a need for a change in laws, hearings might help that. i am not sure there is a need, but there is already good cooperation. i do appreciate your service to this congress. thank you very much. >> the royal canadian mounted police border patrol has outstanding working relation and

history as well. at least it has been the history that most of the resources have been on the southern border with mexico because that is for the pressure is. we have less officers and they defend relationships with local law enforcement. >> one good border patrol person helped apprehend -- who was of to no good at all. she used her training and a perception and was able to stop that. >> thank you. the chairmen is here. i will recognize him. >> i will be quick. have given sworn in? i have a lot of questions for you. >> every time he testified

before congrs, we're sworn in. >> we have sworn at him. [laughter] congressman, thank you for being here. thank you for giving us an inside view from an outside agency. that is the only reason i showed up here. i said, wait a second grade this is normally committee room. this is one of my best friends in congress. that is all i wanted to say. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i have said publicly on occasion, while we may differ in our politics, we all want to do what is best for our national security and protection. how we get there really is the important part. for many different reasons, these guys are the experts. i thank god that i have the background because i really

enjoyed my 26.5 years in the border patrol. i do not think there is a final law enforcement group in the world than the border patrol. as you can expect, i am a little biased. >> used to be somebody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here this morning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. he must be pretty special because he has never said anything that nice to me. >> he was a member of my committee when i was chairman of the intelligence committee and worked on many different issues. >> are you telling me that you the photos or something? >> not that i'm aware of. we did work on some tough stuff that will never -- people will never know publicly. it is about the national security of our country. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate the opportunity to be here on this committee. i want to thank my neighbor for is decades of service. i am hearing what you are saying. all castle is the safest city in the u.s., less than 15 miles -- el paso is the safest city in the u.s. 15 miles away, they literally bar their windows and doors. they do not feel like they are in the safest place in the world. just about two weeks ago, they declared their streets to be completely unsafe. what can be done about that? it is such a contrast from the safest city to 15 miles away. >> wasn't there a major highway that would shut down in el paso?

>> anthony is not on the border. >> they expressed tremendous fear for their safety. >> we have two separate criminal activity by a non illegal alien that are coming for the area. anthony's street were declared unsafe because of gang activity. the border highway, which literally runs along the rio grande river, is the road that you were referring to. yes, there was a gunfight that occurred, which attempt may be the most violent city. it may be one of the most

violent cities in the world because of the friction among the cartel's. there were bullets. the concern by the police department was that a stray bullet may hit a passing car there. it is a consequence of the location of the highway. >> if i could reclaim my time. the gang signs from mexico and central america have appeared on barnes and the second district of new mexico and alarms people. we have the grandeur that was killed on his ranch. -- we have the rancher that was killed on his ranch. in the 26.5 years that you served, which areas were in your jurisdiction? with wilderness areas -- the

formal designation of wilderness? >> as an agent, i worked the lake area. >> is that wilderness? is that designated wilderness? >> sections -- because of the excavations of some of the case there, the hieroglyphics and all that, they have been put under the jurisdiction of the interior. it is an area -- like a falcon lake, it is right on the border, half of it is in mexico and the other half is in the united states. we have the responsibility -- >> i have to reclaim my time. i want to observe that he submitted a bill last year and the year before to make wilderness on the area.

in contrast to your assertion that we have 25 miles access in every wilderness area in a place on the border. he had to designates that we could get wheeled vehicles into a five-mile stretch. and that was a compromise. initially, it was not. a long time ago, and their plane crashed from my hometown. they had to back back out. the wilderness is a very restricted designation. we've had testimony that if we created a wilderness along the rio grande, they would not be able to get bulldozers and to replace the earth and dams that washed out in the flood about three years ago. we would be subject to flooding for the rest of time. the wilderness area, i have it in my district. i went to the oregon national monument and i saw the signs. we had a formal briefing and

about half of that was completely off-limits to american tourists because of the illegal activity across the border. it's our agents were able to access that, it does not seem like it would be off-limits to americans because it was so dangerous. many places in new mexico only have barbwire fence. i yield back my time. >> if i could respond. the international boundary and lottery commission has the authority to do the kind of work that -- a respected of wilderness designations that mr. pierce was talking about in terms of dams and levees and all that. you should check that out. it will be clear it has the jurisdiction. >> i want to give the benediction to your presentation by thanking you for being here. the written statement that you gave, i agreed with point after

point. cities are improving, the border patrol is doing a great job. one of the study says the border patrol has but a strategy a high priority in enforcement in populated areas. they can do their job when they are allowed to read -- when they are allowed to. i agree with you as well above the age in to be able to respond as best they can. i agree that there are some areas where spending is not legitimate. -- were fencing is not legitimate. but access is. secretary napolitano did say it may be inadvisable for officer safety to await the arrival of a horse for the purpose is to apprehend somebody. that sometimes is a difficult. we remember that all those horses are fed. you could not have perfect kind

of forces. i agree with you on three other points. local consultation should be the best space at making those the kinds of decisions. i will tell you that they do have a definition of what that -- what they are correct they have not always been maintained by the land managers. that will come out in our testimony later. i definitely agree with a good idea that you had on keeping up a report of interest. -- port of entry. you said that we should have bigger staff there. what he is talking about are officers at the port of entries. i took offense at that because he is talking about me. i perceive you being here. thank you for your testimony. thank you for being a part of. we will let you go back and do some real work now.

>> i look forward to working with you and your respective committees on these very important issues for our country. thank you very much. >> we now have the next panel that will be joining us. i would like -- will take a four-minute recess. >> the next panel will come up very, very slowly. as it did set up for you. do not stand up yet, that is too fast. [laughter] it is going to be a couple of seconds before we can get situated. you can protect the pronunciation of that. he is the deputy chief of the u.s. customs and border control. rigid border patrol. we have the deputy assistant

secretary of the emergency management and the department of interior. secretary undersecretary for national resources and the department of agriculture. in one second, we would ask you -- >> is the practice that all witnesses will be sworn in. those three witnesses as well as the backup witnesses to rise and raise your right hand. >> do you swear to tell the whole truth, so help you god? you may be seated. let the record reflect that all participants answered in the affirmative. thank you.

>> before the next vote occurs, we can have the testimony of the individuals who are there. i do not -- be a care in which order you go? let's take you from left to right. we will start with homeland security, interior, and finish up with the agricultural department. thank you for being here. you have been here long enough to know that everything -- your written testimony is in the record. anything you want to add, we can put that into the record as well. when the yellow bus and light comes on, you have one minute left. are you sad? -- set? >> it is my privilege and honor to appear before you today to discuss u.s. customs and border protection efforts concerning illegal activity on federal lands.

i began my career in law enforcement in 1985 as a border patrol agents. the route my career, i've helped defend numerous positions on another and -- northern and southern border. the border is a different place today than it was when i began my career. i personally wedded to the evolution of the border. -- witness the evolution of the border. as well as the change to exploit a block -- border of vulnerability. last year, the border patrol -- that is compared to 10 years ago when we made 1.6 million arrests. a more than 70% reduction. we've seen positive indicators of a more secure border. our work will not end. the border patrol and national strategy was implemented in 2004.

we saw to gain, maintain, and expand control at the border with the assistance of congress. we have seen an unprecedented influx of resources. we operate within the confines of the rule of law and regulations. would our efforts be easy without these legal remarks? yes, it would. does the border patrol faces challenges with respect to operating around protected lands? yes. we have been able to establish practical solutions to allow success. in 2006, secretaries signed a memorandum of understanding committing the signatories to ongoing operations. it is understood that the border control -- patrol cannot -- we do have access on foot, horseback, and without restriction under emergency circumstances.

our field commanders are tasked to consider the multiple environments in order to establish their requirements for resources are required and how to best applied them. each land has beat inspected individually. without sacrificing the nation's security. some of this activity can be time-consuming, but we have the necessary infrastructure, technology, and resources. we look at the border, each area has to be taken individually. note to stretches are the same. -- n two stretches are the same. agents are on every date interacting with the committees in which they live. there are many opinions from the border community. our mission is to enforce laws

enacted by congress. . . thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i do look forward to your questions. >> thank you chairman and members of the subcommittee.

i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issues of border security and the department of the interior's role in the administration collaborative efforts to increase activity on federal lands. i'm the deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement security and emergency management at interior. i have been a law enforcement professional for 25 years with both interior and the u.s. forest service and been involved in bornede issues for the last four years. i am joined bit acting director of the law enforcement and security for the bureau of land management, jim hall, the chief of law enforcement of the fish and wild life service and the chief of law enforcement of emergency service for the national park service. i would like to submit our full statement for the record and summarize my testimony. we appreciate the attention that your subcommittees have given to the issue of securing our borders. the department of homeland security including u.s. customs and border protection and border patrol has been given the mandate to secure our international borders and deter

brorte activity. we have the responsibility of administering uniquely beautiful and environmentally sensitive lands along the borders. we recognize the cultural valings of this lands and we strive to maintain the character and protect and preserve the assets on behalf of the american people. these two objectives, securing our borders and conserving our federal lands are not mutually exclusive. we are not faced with the choice between the two. instead we can and should do both. we at interior are proud of the strong working relationship based on cooperation and the mutual commitment to accomplishing our important agency missions among all of our partner agencies. federal agencies with law enforcement presence on federal lands along the borders include the border patrol, interior agencies including the bureau of land management, national park service, fish and wildlife service and the bureau of indian affairs. our agencies have developed a cohesive approach to border security. in march 2006, interior d.h.s.

and agriculture entered into a memorandum of understanding providing the department with goals, principals and guidance relative to securing the borders, addressing emergencies involving human safety and minimizing the damage from illegal cross border activities on federal lands. we believe the guidelines contained have been effective in providing both interior and border patrol with the necessary framework to strike the appropriate balance for patrol and infrastructure access to interior lands by border patrol. while continuing to maintain an emphasis on protection of federal trust resources. the three departments have continually and successfully worked together to carry out the tenets outlined in the m.o.u. at both the headquarters and field levels. at interior, we have established a department wide coordination structure to facility tate the regular coordination and collaboration between border control and interior agency representatives. additionally, we have found the

stewardship training task force to build on cultural training for border patrol agents whose activities include federal lands. collaboration is taking place with the border patrol in the field. the border patrol established a public lands leyson agent position for each of its 20 sectors. interior land managers communicate and collaborate on issues with mutual interests or concern with those agents on a regular basis. in addition, border patrol agents conduct joint patrols on interior land. this close coordinate ration provides staff with training and orientation and enhancing homeland security activities and resource-related investigations. a few examples are a sampling of the on going collaborative dialogue and strong relationship that interior agencies and personnel have developed with our colleagues in the border patrol. the deployment of border patrol personnel, equipment, and infrastructure along the southwest border has led to significant improvements in

border security. we are very pleased with these improvements because of the enhanced security to our nation and also because these efforts lead to overall healthier conditions on lands on the border. during this deployment of resources, we have wording closely and well with the border patrol to avoid or mitigate on the federal lands. i would like to recognize the collective efforts that we have taken to meet the intent of the 2006 interagency m.o.u. and the shared commitment by our departments to accomplishing the missions of our agencies. chairman, this clues my statements. i would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the other subhe cans may subcommittees. >> thank you. >> chairman and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the department's views on border security on national forest system lands. you have my written testimony for the record, but i would

like to take this time to emphasize some key points. first, the department and the forest service take very seriously the need to secure our nation's border. we fully support as it is in our common interest that we address the legal u.s. border crossings, the smuggling of people and contraband across the border, the crimes against those and other unlawfully activities. through all of this it is important to recognize and empathize with the plight of those undocumented foreign nationals who are seeking a better life. yet there are impacts to national forests on both the northern and southern borders, particularly so on portions of the coronado national forest, we are seeing issues related to excessive trash, human caused fire and the safety of the recreating public. we are taking measures to mitigate the impacts. i want to talk about the contact with have with the

border patrol and sister agencies. we participate in numerous joint patrol exercises, have a signed and liaison to the border patrol. communicated in real-time on ground to each other and work expeditiously to provide the acts they need and protect the environment. the forest chief was in southern arizona meeting with chief hill of the tucson sector of the border patrol. they toured the border by helicopter to see and learn firsthand the challenges we face together. there is much to do. we are seeing success. to reinforce the general accounting office has acknowledged the close cooperation between our agencies. third, we are convinced that a well protected border means well protected public lands. the more we can assist the border patrol with stopping illegal traffic, the less impact there will be on the national forests. to date we are unaware of any requests made by the border patrol where we have not been able to accommodate their meets in an expeditious matter and

still protect the environment. we would like to thank the subcommittees for their attention to this issue. we want to work closer with you and understand your concerns. our experience tells us we can accomplish our missions of securing the border and protecting the environment recognizing these are not mutually exclusive objectives. we will continue to make interagency progress with the border patrol and our sister agencies in the department of interior for accomplishment of our mission. this concludes my jerkal testimony. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, i appreciate all of you being here. let me ask the first round of questions. looking at the -- for all of you, looking at the understanding. it appears that the big part of the agreement is access in exigent or emergency circumstances. let me start with you. what is an exigent circumstance? >> mr. chairman, it's outlined in the m.o.u., what we try to

do is ensure that the border patrol agent and in their judgment determined what an exigent circumstance was, whether it was in pursuit of ail yens -- >> is there a definition in the m.o.u.? >> yes. >> and what is that definition? >> exercising existing exigent emergency authorities to access lands including authority to conduct motorized offroad pursuit of c.b.b. at any time including in areas designated or recommended as wilderness or study areas when in their professional judgment based on articulated facts there is a specific exigent emergency involving human life, health, safety of persons within the area or posing a threat to national security. >> that's the key element. so human life, health and safety of persons in the area or posing a threat to national security. are you aware in a when my

staff questioned one of the park superintendents and even the director of the national park service told us that an exigent circumstance is life or death only. is that what the the m.o.u. says? >> no. >> so this incorrect definition is not just the opinion of the park service, unfortunately, the fish and wildlife director said in his opinion that an emergency is defined as life threaten circumstances and otherwise border patrol has to continue to access the refuge on foot or on horseback and also gave them a warning, if they violated his version of that m.o.u. within six months he would close all access down. are you aware of that? >> no, i'm not aware. >> what are you going to do about? >> what we'll do is ensure and we're continually doing this with our partners, our agencies on the ground and with the border patrol to insure that the m.o.u. is enforced as written. >> that's nice. you are ground aware that the

ground personnel in d.o.i. are not operating under the same definition? do you got it? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> you're right that the protection of the land and the protection of the border shouldn't be mutually exclusive. you should be able to do both. you have not. border patrols have explained to our staff say the m.o.u. could work, but it is not because the land agencies do not following it. have you heard complaints from the field of land managers that they are not following the m.o.u.? >> i think that the m.o.u. does give them the framework to do that. i think in any relationship, there are differing sides and interpretations. >> how would you tell your border patrol if for example, one of the land managers under d.o.i. that the m.o.u. was no longer in effect because there was a new administration? >> we have regular people on the ground that redesigned to programmatically work these issues and operationally understand amongst themselves how we're -- not how to

interpret the m.o.u., but the framework solved any of the problems as they're raised >> what would you tell the land manager when he said that >> i would refer him to the public lands leyson officer. we could talk about the perceptions or actual restrictions were or should or should not about. >> if especially in the g.a.o. report you show multiple examples where the m.o.u. is broken down, how will it function if your employees don't believe they're obligated to follow it? >> as he said, our responsibility in my office as well as our folks in the field is to ensure the appropriate implementation of the m.o.u. and so and in fact the m.o.u. describes the mechanism that if things aren't working out at the local level, that that is to be moved up to the regional and ultimately the headquarters level. so we have managenisms in place to ensure that it is being implemented as outlined in the framework in the m.o.u.

so it's our responsibility to follow up on those instances and ensure that is in fact happening. >> that doesn't work and i appreciate it. but it doesn't work. it's not working. the reports are telling us, the evidence and the cumulative evidence is saying that's system flat out is not working. mr. jensen, the fire issue in your testimony, how many are intentionally set? >> we don't track the numbers that we know that they're intentionally set. we track numbers of fires by human caused and through lightning. >> why don't you track arson? are the forest service employees discouraged from reporting arson? >> not at all. >> why don't you track it? >> we can dig into the numbers as we conduct investigations on specific fires to find the cause of those fires. in that sense, we can get to the answer of the bottom of what caused those fires. >> you don't do that now? that becomes amazing they don't do it. you also said you were not aware of any problems with where your agency has been impeded the border patrol. check the report.

i quoted from them here. my time is over. mr. tierney. there will be another round here. >> so i guess i'm trying to listen carefully here. it seems to me there is some allegations here, not so much that the m.o.u., memorandum of agreement or understanding doesn't allow for things to work properly, but there seems to be incidents reported where it might not have been implemented or worked effectively. is that what you witnesses are hearing as well? correct me if i'm not hearing properly. >> i think that's accurate. >> ms. forson? >> yes. >> is that what you're hearing? >> i agree. >> are we getting ample training in the field in all three departments so they would have an appreciation for the memorandum of understanding and the chain of how they would cooperate and work with others? >> there is an ongoing systematic way for folks to be exposed to it. we have it programmatically set up at each of the locations. that's a constant kind of process because we do have

turnover in the field. relationships change and so there is a constant, you know, revolution of people who learn and then need to know and then move on. the next group gets the same kind of thing. it's like any other relationship. there are ebbs and flows in the level of contact and its effectiveness. >> is there a high percentage of people that are between trainings or haven't been trained yet as they take on responsibilities? >> i would have to get you specific numbers, but it's our intent at each of the levels to have folks who are subject matter experts in the m.o.u. and then have the responsibility for the lieson and the operational contact. >> are any of you are aware of any particular incidents or incidents where the border patrol agents have been absolutely impeded from carrying out their responsibilities by interference through the enforcement of some of these environmental and other wilderness laws? >> i'm not aware of anything specifically, but i'm tell you with 20,000 agents in the field, there are bound to be

within these relationships the differences of opinion and issues that get raised through the sector level commands, the station levels certainly and then up to the headquarters. we have had instances where we have talked about these things at every level looking to solve whatever the issue is. >> ms. forson. >> yes, i would agree with that statement there are instances where folks on the ground need to work through things, but our continual talking to them, meeting with some of our collaborative organizations that we have, the borderline management task forces and so forth are under constant effort that any issues that aren't resolved are bumped up through that mechanism. as i said earlier, they go all the way to the headquarters. we're very involved in my office personally to ensure that anytime we hear there is maybe some impediment or difference of opinion on the ground that we figure that out and we make it happen so the border patrol can successfully carry out their mission.

>> do you have disciplinary procedures for those recalstrant individuals that may be giving instructions that are wrong of the m.o.u.? >> the folks on the ground are bureau employees. those bureaus do have performance plans and disciplinary and a performance program. >> do they use it? >> i can't speak to that actually since i don't work in those bureaus. >> that's part of the problem of bureaucracy, right, we're here talking about one problem and you can't answer for the other part. will it be reasonable to assume that those incidents that may be reported by the general accountability office are those incidents that mr. bishop or others may point out as individual circumstances will be reviewed and action taken if it's warranted? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> you would agree that your agency will do that as well? >> mr. jensen? >> absolutely.

>> is any one of you of a mind that there is a mutually exclusive application of the environmental wilderness laws and our security? >> that they're not exclusive, i agree. >> you agree they're not exclusive. >> i agree. >> absolutely not, we're seeing examples where we're seeing success and i think just this year we embarked upon a joint operation called operation trident that is occurring all this year that is proving and demonstrating how we can work together and achieve both those goals. >> with respect to fires i assume it's in your interest in forestry to make sure the borders are protected and people aren't coming in and being part of human fires, correct? >> that is correct. >> the same with you, are you as a representative of the border patrol here to lodge a complaint of any sort about the way that environmental laws or conservation laws or wilderness laws or anything else are impeding the ability of you and your men and women to protect this country and protect national security? >> no complaint. i agree that the framework

allows us to solve this problem in a practical way. as mr. forson said, -- ms. forson said, it's to do that at the field. >> and you will do that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> are you all familiar with the border security g.a.o. report, february 15, 2011? this is the one preliminary observations on border control measures for the southwest border. are you familiar with it? >> yes. >> all three of you, yes? >> yes. >> i hope i'm pronouncing your name right, you write in your written testimony, border patrol enforcement efforts can pose unique challenges. what are the unique challenges? >> the challenges are that they're like a lot of the enforcement work that is done both for the border patrol and all law enforcement, there is a legal framework -- >> it's different because it is -- >> on protected land. >> and the access, your ability

to patrol is different than it is on say private land or different types of public land that aren't designated as wilderness, correct? >> depending on the environment, it is different. >> absolutely. ok. 17 of the 26 border patrol stations interviewed by the g.a.o. indicated, "when they attempted to obtain a peter or access, delays and restrictions have resulted as a compliant with land management laws." would you disagree with that? >> have i no dispute about the facts. >> you testimony that there is no problem. everything is getting along rosy. i read this report and you have only secured 129 miles of a 2,000-mile border. you can't come before the american people and this country and say that everything is rosy and fine. people are dying. they're getting killed because we have these big gaping holes in our security and they're going into some of the most inhospitable pieces of land and they're dying.

they're being dehydrated. they're going through these cactus-ridden areas and they're dying. and we're putting border patrols out there and say just go on foot, go on horse. we must protect this little cactus and this little roadrunner. that's what i have a concern about. for you to testify routinely that everything is fine, i'm not aware of any instance and then read that we're having permit and permission troubles is troubling. let me go on. according to g.a.o., 14 of the 17 agents in charge, agents in charge, people that you should be personally familiar with of the border patrol stations indicated delays by federal land managers who reported that they have "been unable to obtain a permit or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because of how long it takes for land managers to comply with environmental laws." so how have these delays, based on this report lessened the

agents' ability to detect undocumented aliens in some areas? >> the report is a snapshot in time. the framework that is within the m.o.u. allows those agents in charge to make those requests and when those requests are judged by the public lands liasson or the border lands task force to be reasonable, we sort through that and make it happen. to suggest that it's perfect, that's not why i'm here. >> the reason you're here it's not perfect. let me move on. as cased. border patrol requested permission to move a mobile surveillance system another area. by the time the permission was granted, four months after the initial request, illegal traffic had shifted to another area. as a result, border patrol, "was unable to move the surveillance area to the low-cal it desired and during the four-month delay, agents were limited in their ability to detect undocumented aliens within a seven-mile range that could have been covered by the

system." true or false? is that statement true or false? >> it's true. >> so how can you testify that everything is fine and that you're working with such a great relationship, you have a surveillance system that i would think would make your border patrol agents and the united states of america safer and these people over here are giving you a four-month delay? how come you're not here with the same type of outrage that i have. how come, we work together, can't we just get along. we got people dying. how do you respond to that because you testified, we have listened to what you said that, oh, everything is fine. >> the framework allows for us to move through these issues in this problem. is it perfect, no? >> in in instance in the report that came out, it's four months away. how do you respond to this? mr. jensen, jump in here. four-month delay. why does that happen?

>> i'm looking, i'm asking my folks to find examples on the national forest system land here. we're working as quickly as possible to work through the requests that come through. we have examples in front of us now, the zone 20 project where we're actually moving to build roads within, on restricted lands. we're seeing success. it does not happen immediately in every single case. we are making tremendous progress and working together to address his concerns as they arise. >> mr. fielding. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all of us feel on this issue certainly as strongly as he does. some of us express ourselves differently. i have been here 34 years and i always find it a great opportunity when you have people from the field who know this issue very well to go to

the level to learn, at a high level. i appreciate you're helping to enlighten us. we're not always go to agree, but i think we have this opportunity to learn from you. let me ask you this question. i'll address it to ms. thorson, but anybody of you have made answer. is there an incident or a pattern of ignoring the m.o.u. that we have been talking about, what is your reaction or response to that? and should there be something stronger than an m.o.u.? should it be something in law? >> thank you, congressman. our actions, if there was a consistent pattern of ignoring the m.o.u., as i stated earlier, we have a mechanism in place to bring that to our attention at headquarters.

in numerous incidents, i personally get involved and other members of my staff talking to these gentlemen to come together to figure out what is going on. we also talk to our bureau representatives, bureau of directors and/or their regional directors who have direct control over those local units and come together to discuss what the issues are and resolve those issues. we do it very high level for any incident on the border that gets to our attention that we know about, we will take action such as that to ensure that it gets resolved on the ground. we hope most of those are resolved locally, but they're not all as we heard earlier. they do get to our attention. >> anyone else have any comment? i would encourage you to keep it at a high level or each raise the level of importance because when agreements are made, very often they aren't easy to arrive at, but they're

done for a reason, so i would encourage you to keep it at the high level. i think it's very important. i would not want to stop a chase because someone didn't want to follow a memorandum of understanding which makes very good sense and is important for very often our national security. so i would keep it at the high level, if necessary, raise it to a higher level. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. kildee. mr. pearce. >> thank you, mr. chairman. are you familiar with the operating memorandum of understanding between the v.o.m. and the border patrol? >> not particularly, sir. >> well, it states very clearly that a mobile command, mobile communications site there and the big hatch chet peak will be moved as soon as possible if the area is designated as wilderness. so it's there now, but if it's

wilderness, it can't be there. doesn't that sound like a little bit of an impediment? why wouldn't the people have decided to put it somewhere else to start with if that were a better place? doesn't that sound like a little bit of an impediment? >> in that instance, that's an example, i understand that the repeateder is on big hatchet mountain and if legislation was passed, we would have to work to ensure that it would stay there. it is an opportune location. >> it will be moved if it's designated wilderness. conservation is trumping protection. you declare that wilderness and security are not mutually exclusive. i know it's not exactly wilderness area. but the oregon pipe national monument that i visited in 2006 as chairman of the park subcommittee and they declared it to be inhospitable for around travelers. is it still that way?

it's wide open, clearly open to american tourists with no warnings? >> i don't know the staut us of the visitation for staff. >> it's very alarming in that the warnings are still given to american tourists, you shouldn't be in this area. if the two are not mutually exclusive, why doesn't that area fit into your 129 miles of secure border? >> 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 get a coue 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 parcular 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 monume. that is 95% a wilderness. i want to get to ms. thorsen, the result of the negotiations with border patrol over this project? >> at is pointn 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 folksn 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 answe >> my understanding is that some were moved. >> yes, ok. whate'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? >> itas 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, thpurpose of thats to maintai habitat for the

coceloet. whether or not we have sn 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 her 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 wtever, 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 wou 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 exis to solve these problem 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 problemhan 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 aboutt? >> as i understand it, there w 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 operatns, people wanted to move that equipment in the capality 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 foumonths 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 vious members. patrol agents in charge for 14 of the 17 stations reported that they hadeen 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 tnesses 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. date, 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 whher 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 conferce 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 its 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 nt 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 veryappy 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 bro. somali, the relationshi 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 vermuch.

[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 patrolnd the part, they moved those towers and locations within the boundary of the wilderss but are not designated -- that talk of land is the designated specifically wilderness. they are in t 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 n 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 immediat border for people who dehydrate. >> and coming north, correct. i don't knohow 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 accompaniedby canine units. at is the forest service total commitment to the borr 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 serce 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 . 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.

>>hat 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, whic 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.hairman, 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 risinterior 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 watcthis. i am going to show you things happening right on our borders. this is on the mexic 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 wa 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 hpy that the pupfish as a buffer zone paid for by border security. we appreciate the witnees 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 itou'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 answed 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 appreate you being here. mr. wood, we will go left and right again. if you like to behe 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, m 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 o 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 detenti 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 seed 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 istricted land designations. sie 2004, leadership of tt 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 isimply an issue of denied access. unfortunately, our country' 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 presentorder patrol supervisor and agents -- how do we protect our national surity 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 reaso -- 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 aboutassa 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 theseroups are capable of and rounely 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 arizonaorder 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 unwillingo 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 fm 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 sely transported or evacuated because of access issues. there is also the fact that they're reluctant tpatrol 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 proct 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 surity 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 8nd 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 s 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 ve 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 aa 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 militaryad 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 thoands of military bases and air fields and port facilities inside the united states during the war would have beedelayed for years. would not make sense to control the border at the border, by completing the border fee? there is no border fence from nogales to sacebee, about 50 or

60 miles. wouldn't 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 ofew 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 bger it was. ranchers in the border area cannot leave houses on guard for aew 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 vehicle 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 thect. 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 remotess 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 operatial control on federal lands on the southwest border is to have a sufficient number of agents have access to additional technology

anddditional 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 prol 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 askinthe 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 patl 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 wnesses, in your opinion, from your experiences on the ground, our environmental

laws such as the endangere 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, forhe purpose of patrolling the border, 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 -- 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 borr i 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. 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 phoex. >> 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 designad 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 n 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 witnees? >> 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 dramaticly 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 restrictio 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 loof 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 ver easy to go back and blame the land management agencies when you have not yet taken the actions thathe 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 envirmental 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 rult 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. dale

-- 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 mounin peak located in southern new mexico. it is the sole source for counication. 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 throughertain 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 tough the wilderss, 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 uer 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 aost 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 aboutt 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 me 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 earliern my testimony, cutting -- sign cutting is one of the preferred and effective techniques used by the border patrol over the

ars. 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 areot able to use that technique, we're losing a very valuable tool tt 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. thiss 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 beingroposed. 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 appciate 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 somareas, it is doing a really good job.

in a very committed not affected. >> figures the look into those areas not affected as to what thcause 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 ve 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 tir 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 bas 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. there's no further business,

then without objection, this hearing is adjourned. thank you again. [captioning performed by national captionininstitute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> night, house republican

leaders talk about the budget bill. then, floor debate on the 2012 budget. after that, democratic leadership on that vote. this weekend, in the political and correct got to socialism, kevin williams and defines socialism and how it works in the u.s. today. he is interviewed. carla peterson recalls the lives of african american elites living in new york city. also this weekend, a look at barbara bush, jacqueline kennedy, and eleanor roosevelt. you can find a complete schedule at booktv.org. >> on april 12, 1861, pin rhetoric -- confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina. this not the nation commemorates

the 158 year anniversary. c-span3 brings you the sights and sounds from fort sumter in charleston as well as interviews with civil war scholars and reactors from the north and south. get the complete schedule action cspan.org/history. >> the house of representatives has approved their 2012 budget plan. we will show you the floor debate in a moment. house speaker john boehner met with reporters to discuss the budget plan. the budget introduced by chairman paul ryan faced a series of votes on amendments that sought to replace it with alternate plans including one proposal pushed by a group of conservatives. those proposals or beat on the house floor. the speaker was joined by other members of the republican leadership. this is about 10 minutes.

>> we all knowed cutting spending will reduce the uncertainty for job creators. i am hopeful that the president will begin to get serious about the long-term fiscal crisis that our country is facing. it is serious. it needs to be dealt with now. we owe it to the american people. we'll 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 holds that the president will take his job as seriously as we are taking hours.

quite good morning. a lot of you have been writing about the drama. i can tell you that our conference is united. we are united around the fact that we have a budget and a plan on the floor of the house today that speaks to the seriousness with which we are approaching the problems facing this country. the budget is typically the toughest vote for any congress. we are here today because of the hard work of chairman paul ryan and his committee. we have a resounding support of this budget. we are united in cutting spending, promoting growth, and in the fact that we do not believe that we should be raising taxes in this tough economy. all of these things set us

apart from members on the other side of the aisle. >> today is another example of how the house has changed. today we are going to take up a budget. unfortunately, this house has not done this in quite some time. this is not a political game. this is about job growth and energy policy. it puts america on a path for a comeback. no longer will we be worried about fading into history. yesterday we cut billions. today we country inns. -- we cut trillions. >> when it comes to growing the

economy at addressing the debt, the answer is quite simple -- cut spending. we have come out with a bold plan that cuts $6 trillion over the next 10 years then and it gets us on a path to pay off the debt in its entirety. it is the same old scare tactics. they want to scare our seniors. at a time when our economy continues to struggle -- it is appropriate that we consider and ask ourselves the question -- do we want to spend more money on big government or on our families? >> i am a proud to be here today and proud of chairman ryan. i am prelate to be part of the budget committee that has drafted this great bill but will put us on the path to

prosperity. one of the two things that the american public is concerned about is we are spending too much and we need to be on the track of leading our country to prosperity. the second is jobs. this bill addresses both of those issues. i am proud to cast my vote for this bill. >> if we want to create jobs and save our children from bankruptcy we have to quit spending money we do not 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. this budget will help us create jobs. it will save at the social safety net programs. it will give great comfort to my parents and grandparents. that is why this vote is so

important to saving trillions of dollars for the american people -- to save social safety net programs for future generations. to create jobs for our fellow citizens. i will celebrate the vote this afternoon for the "path to prosperity" >> i think it is pretty clear that we do not make changes to these programs that they will not exist. the fact is that a responsible plan has been put forward. it will in fact reform these programs and make sure they are around for the long term. the greatest danger that america faces today is doing nothing. >> what is your reaction to

president obama's speech in chicago? >> i did not see his remarks. i pinky mentioned it as a campaign speech. >> [unintelligible] >> i think it is important for our members to go home and talk about the crisis that we face and the fact that the changes being proposed will not affect one senior citizen in america. it has been made perfectly clear that anyone 65-years or older will not be affected by any of these changes. if you are 54 or older, you have to understand if we do not make changes the plan will not be there. this is sensitive to many americans. transforming them is as

important as anything that we can do here. >> [unintelligible] >> we have had submissions around here. nobody has paid much attention to the budget deficit commission. the conversations will continue. >> the you have any idea how many votes you have? >> i do not know. 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. thank you.

>> when alternative to the ryan budget was the republican study committee. a simple majority was needed to pass. during the vote, the democrats who voted no began switching their votes to present. with each switched votes, the threshold to passage was lower. according to roll call that puts republicans who voted yes or present in a difficult position. if they did not switch their votes to know, the budget would pass. with both of the -- the party's leadership did not want that to happen. betting against the plan was politically risky. conservative activists that that plan over paul ryan's proposal. at least 57 of the 176 members either voted against the conservative group's budget or

but did present. -- or voted present.

>> on this vote, the yeas are 120.

on this vote, the yeas are 119. the amendment is not adopted. >> if the house of representatives has approved the 2012 budget plan introduced by chairman paul ryan. that came following a series of votes to replace it with an alternate plan including one proposal supported by a group

of conservative republicans. now, before debate on the rhine and budget resolution. some spectators cause a disruption in the gallery and were arrested by capitol police. nine people were arrested in the gallery, 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 today because today is the day that we turn that clock back around. we have a plan and a path to prosperity 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 the long 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 invention of the laws and rules of the house.

the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the 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 clock 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 maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. 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 different 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 difficult conversation 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 listening 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 much 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 sergeant at 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 the gallery.

the committee will be in order.

>> the speaker has had to gavel water. we understand a number of people in the gallery had been removed by capitol police. the chair: the committee will come to order. the chair 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 we do that. and as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort requires a balanced approach. and the republican plan simply 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 ideological 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, scientific 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 american 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 support 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 cayman islands, in switzerland, and refuse to pay their fair 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 way that 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 reserve the balance of my time. 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 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. chairman, 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. the congressional budget office has announced that medicare is going broke in 2020, and my democratic colleagues announce 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. restore order to the gallery. the gentleman may proceed.